ty

Hmm, I think it doesn't require a flag in `Coroutine`. You can make use of the `data` field in the `Transport`.

Hmm, what would you do if you are using normal C APIs?

Ah, I see. So if one `TcpStream` is waiting for events, then you cannot do anything on it until it got some events right? In this case, this is not...

I have implemented an experimental version to solve this problem, please [check this test](https://github.com/zonyitoo/coio-rs/blob/experimental-io_timeout/tests/echo.rs#L57). This would provide a way to set a timeout time for an I/O object.

Still in experimental stage, please ensure it works well

The only thing you have to ensure is API compatibility, so you can surely reimplement all the internal in coio as you wish. Yes, removing oneshot polling is a good...

Well, looking forward to see that. I don't think there is a better solution for the two DoS attack situations, which are: large number of connections and rapidly create new...

@lhecker BTW, I think we should keep this crate simple and do what it have to be done. I am also planning to build a server framework with coio.

coroutine-rs is my first project, but soon I found that it is very useless to use coroutine without I/O. Also it is very hard to separate coroutine's basic facilities outside...

Just to note: 1. If someone accesses to the variable without running Coroutine, it should panic or not? If not, what's the expected behavior?