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-Thread: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!jacob-sparre.dk!ada-dk.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:49:51 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <isk3kj$qfs$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <op.vvyoslycule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <is6t99$6i4$1@munin.nbi.dk><87k4d4z6b6.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <is8vlq$9f$1@munin.nbi.dk><87pqmsa65o.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de><1hx6ys2t3o3f8.18zbene4l81d5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <87pqms8h6v.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1307414995 27132 69.95.181.76 (7 Jun 2011 02:49:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 02:49:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20632
Date: 2011-06-06T21:49:51-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Florian Weimer" <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote in message 
news:87pqms8h6v.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de...
>* Dmitry A. Kazakov:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:06:59 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
...
>>> For all its faults, there is no alternative to BSD sockets.
>>
>> So what? Ada's interface to TCP/IP stack and other network stacks need 
>> not
>> to be thin. On the contrary it should be as abstract as possible in order
>> to remain independent on any OS-specific mess.
>
> Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.  What would an API
> look like that is more abstract than BSD sockets?  Would it
> parametrize aspects such as congestion control and packet
> fragmentation?

BSD sockets is full of bizarre operational requirements which make it quite 
a bit more complex than necessary. One way to abstract it (lightly) is shown 
by Tom Moran's NC.Sockets (originally part of Claw). It probably would be 
better to abstract it even further (Tom wasn't trying to write a portable 
abstraction of sockets, it only worked out to be most of that).

                                       Randy.