Re: ISO/IEC 14519 - Ada POSIX binding

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

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Mark Lorenzen <mark.lorenzen@ofir.dk> writes:
...
> And here is another argument to support POSIX.5: Designing a new,
> incompatible, 

Whoa on incompatible! Incompatible to what?!?! There is not networking
package on Ada yet. There is no compatibility required!

> Ada interface to OS services would be a huge effort that
> would not necessarily yield better results than POSIX.5, 

No, and no. An Ada.Sockets package is not a complete re-implementation
of networking services any more than Ada.Text_IO must be. In GNAT
for example, the C stdio functions are used underneath the hood. In
the same way, any Ada.Sockets package is not required to re-invent
anything. It is merely a binding to O/S services, except in special
COTS like situations where the vendor may not supply any TCP/IP
service.

> but the
> results would definitely arrive at least 11 years after POSIX.5.  

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. ;-)

Many people have already implemented sockets packages that
are bindings. Ask them how long it took them.

 > So,
> I think it would be better to take POSIX.5 as a given, and spend
> quality time on standardising containers, for example.
> 
> To conclude: IMHO, designing a new Ada standard for sockets amounts to
> reinventing the wheel.

No. Ada.Text_IO is not a re-invention of stdio. For GNAT users, this
merely presents an _interface_. In most cases, this is what
Ada.Sockets will be. An _interface_.

The _only_ exception might be in embedded system situations where
the vendor has chosen to provide TCP/IP support in this way. But
even then, I doubt you would find it happen that way.

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