Problem with boost::asio::ip::tcp::socket::cancel() and socket::close()?

Cancel is useful if you want to stop pending operations without closing down the socket.

Cancel is useful if you want to stop pending operations without closing down the socket. Note that the Boost documentation recommends using close for greater portability (from doc page): ... For portable cancellation, consider using one of the following alternatives: Disable asio's I/O completion port backend by defining BOOST_ASIO_DISABLE_IOCP. Use the close() function to simultaneously cancel the outstanding operations and close the socket.

Note however the remarks for cancel() also state When running on Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and later, the CancelIoEx function is always used. This function does not have the problems described above. – Sam Miller Jun 22 at 15:33 thank you and Sam Miller for help,i understand a little now,thank you – xiao su Jun 23 at 3:40.

Cancel won't close the socket, so use cancel if you intend to continue using the socket object. In particular, if you have code in asynchronous handler methods that references the socket's member functions, you may not want to close the socket until you are guaranteed that your currently executing asynchronous handlers have completed. Cancel doesn't guarantee anything about currently executing asynchronous handlers, it only guarantees (per the boost documentation) that "This function causes all outstanding asynchronous connect, send and receive operations to finish immediately" in the case of the socket::cancel() call, or "This function forces the completion of any pending asynchronous operations on the host resolver" in the case of the resolver::cancel() call.

This "completion" means that boost will call your asynchronous handler method, it has no jurisdiction to inject any cancellation logic into your asynchronous handler (not to mention it doesn't know about the handler's implementation to begin with). I would suggest adding your own logic into your asynchronous handler method to handle the case where the socket/resolver/etc. Is canceled. If you are calling the cancel method, then you likely have the ability to communicate this cancellation to the asynchronous handler method.

Holtavolt is correct, using close() is more portable, but it all depends on what you're trying to do. – devyndraen Jun 22 at 12:56 thank you for your help,yes,i create serveral objects to process http request and put these objects into a std::deque,one task coming,pop_front one object from deque to work,when finish push_back the object to deque,when something error during the connection,send or read,i will close the socket,but in connect and read,i set a 20s timeout,when connect timeout,i want to cancel the callback func handle_connect,in this handle_connect_timeout or handle_read_timeout,i am not sure which one to use,cancel or close,but now ,i think the best one for me is close – xiao su Jun 23 at 3:38.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.