[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sockets Layer Counter Proposal
- To: "Takashi Kato" <ktakashi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Sockets Layer Counter Proposal
- From: "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:27:42 -0400
- Delivered-to: srfi-106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sacrideo.us; h= content-type:to:subject:references:date:from:message-id :in-reply-to:resent-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :resent-from:resent-date:resent-message-id; s=mesmtp; bh=9XXF47f /MMBMI/cEqarWlClVdZU=; b=zHXzfszCm45CxBOfdPWPpjeFVFV7Q/MVPTepTO6 J6Zvd3dMrOYxzV8cm8hOcnLR+m6fCNfjgeTCkIt1JluUxi23vNdswZ92YmMEeQ7L 0vJPOSA5u5fRGyQxkoLQcMnMqVpnH2P/hz4c3m4E/aDR1aFsZmcF+XUZ4qZnE5JE OinE=
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:to:subject:references:date :from:message-id:in-reply-to:resent-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:resent-from:resent-date :resent-message-id; s=smtpout; bh=9XXF47f/MMBMI/cEqarWlClVdZU=; b= ROHu1RqJqBj+yihNnNUscUCMnshDWBJLB1xPIHhJ2dfg1DGOZBDDhLz6CDo491nE kFvqfyfsxgmS/blM+BZCJ2Xaz44C6eIVkEtKfmQGnq3PGaf1LkHw2wSOEZ94SpHv 45QvJfRp5tuSK8YDw7A4iHZCcOi5IrGg9DbdjpmoRy8=
- In-reply-to: <507133DC.20206@xxxxxxxxx>
- Organization: Indiana University
- References: <op.wlr50aws0p3ku8@localhost> <507133DC.20206@xxxxxxxxx>
- Resent-date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:18:01 -0400
- Resent-from: "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Resent-message-id: <op.wltr0bwu0p3ku8@localhost>
- Resent-to: "srfi-106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <srfi-106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Opera Mail/12.10 (Linux)
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 03:48:44 -0400, Takashi Kato <ktakashi@xxxxxxxxx>
(2012/10/07 1:25), Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
I appreciate the effort undertaken here. However, I would like the
author of this SRFI to consider the BSD Sockets interface that I have
written located here:
I believe that the two interfaces share a number of things in common.
However, I believe that the interface I have designed, which is largely
portable among implementations, is likely to scale better, while
remaining simple at its core.
The whole purpose of this SRFI is not supporting BSD style socket but
providing commonly used procedures so that users can avoid to write own
implementation dependent layers. And as far as I know, not all
implementations support BSD style socket and it will be a lot of work to
support it for them.
If you are talking about operating system implementations, then I think
that most operating systems which implement sockets provide at least the
level of sockets that I have specified as required in my own
If you are talking about Scheme implementations, then I am not sure I get
your point here. Implementations with an FFI will not have any trouble,
while implementations that support what you have specified here directly
certainly seem capable of support the approach that I have taken as well,
any other implementation will not likely be able to support either api.
My API is not much more complicated than what you have provided here.
I think other SRFI can support BSD style socket interface and based on
that this SRFI can be implemented.
I suggest that they be merged simply because I don't think the differences
are very great, and I think having two SRFIs for this would only make
things more confusing.
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@xxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.sacrideo.us
Programming is just another word for the Lost Art of Thinking.