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: 103376,2d2df3e9ad18fa63 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-23 10:09:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.uunet.ca!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3EF730B4.2060408@cogeco.ca> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ISO/IEC 14519 - Ada POSIX binding References: <87znkbqmby.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:54:12 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1056387254 198.96.223.163 (Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:54:14 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:54:14 EDT Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39613 Date: 2003-06-23T12:54:12-04:00 List-Id: Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Mark Lorenzen 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