From: dmoore99atwork (dmoore_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-01 13:20:56
--- In boost_at_y..., Iain.Hanson_at_u... wrote:
>
> Ahhh. Now I think I understand where the confusion is comming from.
The
> requirements state that we need to restrict ourselves to the
network and
> transport layers and not go off into http and ftp.
>
> I have no desire to go against this requirements but IP is not the
only network
> layer protocol that is supported by the C sockets API.
>
> I would like to reproduce, as much as possible, of the genericity
of the C
> sockets API with type saftey and without some of the redunancy.
>
> /ikh
Yes, but I think what alot of folks are suggesting is that:
1. We shouldn't do anything blatant to *prevent* the interface from
working with Unix domain sockets, named pipes, etc.
2. BUT, focus on a high quality implementation for the IP family
(TCP and UDP over IPv4 and IPv6) that adds the type safety, steers
the user away from common mistakes
and:
3. Hopefully presents an elegant, platform independent means of
using non-blocking or asynchronous communications.
Personally, I'd like to see the combined expertise of this board
brought to bear on 2 and especially 3 before we provide concrete
implementations for every socket protocol and address type under the
sun....
I think the ideas you've been presenting are a GREAT foundation for
#1, and what you're hearing from others is an eagerness to tackle the
next items on the list. Surely most people hear "socket" and think
TCP or UDP...
Thanks,
Dave