Re: Ada.Networks.Sockets hierarchy for standardization? (sf: ada0y-net-std)

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote in message <3ED806D3.5030001@cogeco.ca>...
...
>>Rather than lose precious time on this, since defining standards and
>>reference implementations can require considerable effort, I have
>>taken some initiative and registered a request at sourcforge for
>>an ada0Y-net-std project to be created there. The website indicates
>>that they need 2 business days to review and to respond to the request.
 >
> Umm, I have to admit that this has been an action item of mine for the
> last 10 months or so. (See AI-292, which is currently empty). My plan
> was to put together a group to propose something, but the last time this
> subject came up here on C.L.A., there wasn't much support for
> standardizing Sockets. So I put my efforts into decoupling the
> Claw.Sockets implementation from Claw (and from Windows), so we at least
> would have a decent library to use, even if not part of the standard.
...
>>I will be looking for volunteers for various things. I can volunteer
>>my some of my own time on various things and code, but depending upon
>>when the submission deadline is, I'll probably need other people to
>>contribute code and documents as well. Can anyone state when our
>>ARG submission deadline is? Randy?
> 
> It depends. For independent outside projects, the deadline is in
> September. (I don't think that is enough time.) If the project is
> "invited", the deadline is at the end of December. The easiest way to do
> that is to convince me that your project is my action item. :-) (Since
> it's already open and on the agenda, no one can complain about a
> last-minute addition.)
> 
>              Randy.

Thanks Randy.

Based upon the submission deadlines, I think it would be very ambitious
to pull anything together for the fall, let alone December, unless
someone else wants to lead the charge for this. I was under the mistaken
impression that we had a little more time. Thinking about it now, it
only makes sense for them to cut it off there.

The Source Forge project has been created (I just received confirmation).

Is there any interest in producing a networking library that goes
beyond sockets? As Randy has pointed out, there are already 3 versions
of socket bindings available, and a 4th if you include the partially
complete POSIX interface in Florist.

I personally favour a library that includes more than just TCP/IP sockets.
None of the existing libraries support UNIX sockets yet, that I am
aware of (Florist has plans to, but it isn't supported yet).

But if there is no interest at all, then it is probably best to drop
this project (I am already busy with enough anyway).

But if there is _some_ general interest, then we can "chip away at it".
We would then have at least 10 years ;-) to develop a working model
and have it established.

Your comments?
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg