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

Re: Sockets Layer Counter Proposal

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 106 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 106 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

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