[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sockets Layer Counter Proposal

Aaron W. Hsu scripsit:

> The create-socket procedure only accepts the domain, type, and
> protocol, which are optional flags in SRFI 106. It does not presume
> that the address is an INET address, and does not assume a specific
> listening or binding address for the server socket, which SRFI 106
> does right now. Listening on a socket and binding a socket for
> service is done explicitly via the bind-socket and connect-socket
> procedures. Note that it is not necessary to make an explicit
> connection on a socket, but SRFI 106 does not permit one to have an
> unconnected socket.

My UDP-specific proposal at
<http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/DatagramChannelsCowan>, has two
constructors, make-datagram-channel for socket() followed by bind() and
make-output-only-datagram-channel for just socket().  I believe this is
a better division of labor than the standard one.

> I do not have a call-with-socket as the specification as given does
> not seem to be useful. It does not do anything except call socket with
> proc, which can be done by saying (proc socket).

Like R[67]RS call-with-port, it makes sure the socket is closed if proc
terminates normally, a non-trivial difference.

> socket-domain/unix
> socket-domain/local
> unix-address?
> make-unix-address
> unix-address-path

IMHO "unix" (which is a trademark) should be suppressed in favor of "local"
in all these names.

A few times, I did some exuberant stomping about,       John Cowan
like a hippo auditioning for Riverdance, though         cowan@xxxxxxxx
I stopped when I thought I heard something at           http://ccil.org/~cowan
the far side of the room falling over in rhythm
with my feet.  --Joseph Zitt