From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-29 10:34:43
At 11:54 PM 12/28/2000 +0000, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
>I agree that whatever you call your network endpoint in a portable
>library, you shouldn't call it a socket. It's too loaded with meaning
>to people who don't know how other platforms work.
>In Unix, TCP sockets are file descriptors and are inherited by child
>processes after a fork. It's a great technique, but it's unfortunately
>become assumed by a lot of people that that's just how TCP works even
>though it's highly platform specific.
You may be missing the point. There are existence proofs that it is
possible to design a sockets interface that works uniformly across
platforms. It doesn't behave exactly like Unix, or any other specific
platform. Rather it defines its own behavior, and it is up to the various
platform specific implementations to meet that behavior.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk