[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: The philosophy of failed pings
From:       "Daniel Berger" <djberg96 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2007-03-31 20:17:51
Message-ID: 1175372266.283947.177180 () y80g2000hsf ! googlegroups ! com
[Download RAW message or body]



On Mar 17, 6:01 am, "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbageca...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 3/17/07, Daniel Berger <djber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes. In all of my past experiences when that happened there would be
> > some additional output sent to stderr, or something sent to stdout
> > that warned you something was wrong, and so my code relied on that. In
> > this particular case there was no warning or error.
>
> > > I don't think #ping(host) should return true unless there has
> > > actually been a packet returned from the targeted host.
>
> > > Not sure if that answers your question though.
>
> > Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning in that
> > direction.
>
> This is probably silly, but ping isn't that hard. Couldn't you just
> implement it with a raw socket? (Or supply both flavors, the ICMP and the
> UDP.) Then you'd have complete control over the outcome.

The net-ping package includes ICMP and UDP implementations (among
others). This is strictly for external pings that I'm referring to.

Anyway, I'm going to update it and put out a release sometime this
weekend hopefully. I need to get a Rakefile added as well.

Regards,

Dan


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]