From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2d69f4a8070dd707 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-31 16:47:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!feed.cgocable.net!read2.cgocable.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3ED93EF7.1000503@cogeco.ca> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Networks.Sockets hierarchy for standardization? References: <3ED83712.8090905@cogeco.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 19:47:03 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.150.168.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cogeco.ca X-Trace: read2.cgocable.net 1054424836 24.150.168.167 (Sat, 31 May 2003 19:47:16 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 19:47:16 EDT Organization: Cogeco Cable Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38253 Date: 2003-05-31T19:47:03-04:00 List-Id: Michael Erdmann wrote: > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > >> For discussion: I have thrown together this evening >> a more formalized view of some "chicken scratching" I did on my >> train commute home this evening. The diagram is available at my >> web site (see PDF link further on). > > I like it. But may be the names services should be put under > Services. Hi Michael: The problem that I see is that there is a fairly major distinction between DNS (Name_Services) and what Ada.Network.Services.Internet represents. The later represents a database of mappings between numeric port numbers (services) and their names (ie. "http" maps to port 80). Name_Services is much more than that. It is an entire protocol built upon the transport(s) (DNS uses UDP and TCP/IP), and in the case of DNS, it is distributed and fairly complex in operation. There are also different name services, and X.500 represents another from the OSI model. So if you move these, then I think they should either be grouped under "name services" or put underneath the general set of protocols built upon. But I personally like to group name services together, because they represent one major "category" of network function. Maybe an improvement might be to move "Ada.Networks.Services" over to child package Ada.Networks.Protocols.Internet.Services instead (these would only be Internet specific of course). Alternatively, it would be tempting to just merge it right into the package Ada.Networks.Protocols.Internet. The mappings for ports and the protocol selection constants aren't that far apart in concept. Other protocols like X.25, may not even need a "services" package. Its been years since I used Datapac (X.25), but IIRC there is no concept of a port. You just use a DNIC (address) and perhaps select the service once you connect to the host at the remote end. Perhaps the service selection is embedded in the DNIC (I forget). OTOH, the amateur radio protocol AX.25, which is based upon X.25, does support up to 16 ports (I forget now, but one of these 16 may be reserved). Take a look at the v2 document below: http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg/Ada.Networks_Hierarchy_v2.pdf Here I moved Services (in blue) underneath Ada.Networks.Protocols.Internet. I think that perhaps that child package might be best merged into Internet, but what do you'all think? I still think Naming services should remain distinct, and probably underneath Ada.Networks somewhere, though package names and overall organizaton are certainly open for more discussion. Is there a better name for Name_Services? Should this be Directory or Directory_Services? > Maybe i have missed it, but what is the difference between red > and black boxes? > > Michael The red just indicated what I believe should be a minimum effort for a "complete" implementation. The blue in the link above, is just to highlight the change. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg