Re: 'g' in the group buffer still very slow

[Martin Rohde <martin.rohde@gmx.de>]

On Day 51 of The Aftermath 3168, Kai Großjohann wrote:

> You could create a new server definition that uses telnet instead of
> connecting directly.  See the variable nntp-open-connection-function
> and the function nntp-open-telnet-stream, referenced from the
> variable.  Maybe you can twiddle the telnet args such that echoing is
> used?  You might wish to manually send stuff to the server in the
> server buffer (" *server foo *nntpd*" or somesuch, mind the leading
> space) using process-send-string.  Then you can see whether the
> server echoes commands.  (I hope that the echo removal isn't done in
> a process filter.)

Ok, now i used nntp-open-telnet-stream and looked at the server
buffer (thanks for the hints). There were several lines like "LIST
ACTIVE <newsgroup>", so commands are echoed and the lines are not
deleted. With nntp-open-network-stream or with an older version of
nntp.el the buffer is "clean".

Obviously my patch didn't worked, but now I figured out, that it
acted in the wrong buffer. And I found another problem: 

After the test-command is send, I somehow have to find out, when the
response has arrived, so that I can look at the echo then. I thought
a (nntp-wait-for "^2.*\n" process buffer [...]) would work, but then
the echo is not found for unknown reasons (I have to confess, that I
don't really know, what I am doing here, maybe nntp-wait-for is
erasing the buffer for some reason...). 

I just tried it with a (sleep-for 2) right after the
nntp-send-string-command to wait until the echo is in the server
buffer, just to see if the rest of my code is ok, and it "works"
now. (That means, nntp-delete-echo is set properly) 

Of course, this is too ugly, so I need a reasonable possibility to
wait for the response. I thought of a kind of loop, but this
wouldn't be that much prettier IMHO. Is there a function i can use 
for this?

> But "mode reader" is not a no-op, could that be a problem?

I'm not quite sure. I wanted to send a command, that doesn't have
affects on gnus and I read, that "mode reader" often is used as a
no-op. Maybe "slave" would be a better idea? (I don't have a clue
about nntp :)

Thanks for your advise,
Martin.