From: Iain Hanson (Iain.Hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-14 07:07:42
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:29 +0400, Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Don G <dongryphon_at_[hidden]>
> Was not Mac OS Classic been buried long ago?
People on this thread are still discussing Win95 :-(.
> IMO, sockets are abstractions out of the scope of any language. Their
> interfaces can be implemented using any general purpose programming
> language, but still you'll have to call an underlying OS C API. That's a
> fact of life and I don't think this is bad - C is the most portable
> programming language ever.
Yes. But, that is not necessarily the 'C' socket lib :-). An optimal
( but not very portable ) implementation would replace the 'C' socket
> Here is my two philosophy cents.
> You propose another set of concepts over socket concepts just to
> send/receive a bunch of mere bytes. Geez, another glue layer over sockets
> that adds nothing but syntax sugar. Aren't we already tired of software
> bloated from glue layers over glue layers over...? You don't just send
> bytes, rather you execute protocols. Sockets have the right implementation
> level and complexity to build *efficient* protocols upon.
I agree with you. I think the well defined concepts developed from BSD
sockets and well known by many programmers is what we need for a layer 1
sockets lib. And I've always liked the idea of being able to specify
protocols as a Spirit grammar.
> Protocol is the
> only glue layer you really always need, the layer that binds your
> application logic with network transport layer (sockets) providing the
and Network and Data Link Layers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk