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,FREEMAIL_FROM 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,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ? Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 01:20:53 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de> <9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4ddbc090$0$6582$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: eKwzOZEoYNmUIKtjz8NWow.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.01 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19432 Date: 2011-05-25T01:20:53+02:00 List-Id: Le Tue, 24 May 2011 16:28:32 +0200, Georg Bauhaus = a =C3=A9crit: > From a programmer perspective, sockets may well be about > how to send a String value to some "Port" on some > "machine" identifiable via DNS. Not only, the concern is also about the protocol behavior, that is mainl= y = reliable/non-reliable, stream/non-stream. What make the difference betwe= en = stream and non-stream, is the reliability=E2=80=A6 TCP/IP is looking lik= e a PIPE, = except for its identity, UDP/IP is not. > A more general approach to sending data around. That's what socket > programs do very frequently, I think, at least when they stream text, > for example. From the programmer's point of view, they use text based > protocols. Not datagrams or packages or anything. This defines one us= e > case of (technically sockets based) data communication. I do not see what fund your proclamation =E2=80=9CNot datagrams or packa= ges or = anything=E2=80=9D. UDP is really used when it does not matter a lot when= some data = is lost on reception or emission (used for example, for some kind of = continuous real-time stream). > Why insist on sockets, then? Good question. May be talking about IPC would be wiser then. After all, = = IPC could be seen as a primitive for RPC, which Ada already talks about.= > Which is why I had hoped to remind that Ada programs, even when > operating a network, might not profit at all from a standard sockets > package, if they do not use sockets, but do control networked = > communication. Be pragmatic. Nothing is totally 0 or totally 1. The kind of application= = you are pointing, are the most rare, the one targeted by sockets, are th= e = most common of the two. > Yes. But at least we might try to learn, for the purpose of = > standardization, > what a typical transport level issue is versus what an application lev= el = > issue Reliability levels (and identity also). > is---not so much about how solutions are built around sockets whenever= > these happen to be available. Standards work seems a good opportunity= > to isolate, in abstract terms, what a transport level issue is. (And= = > what it > might or might not have to do with Ada, or sockets, see below.) :-) > If these issues are central to Ada programming, and future-proof, > there might be funding for isolating a few requirements. Then start > from these requirements. I welcome this =E2=80=9Cisolating a few requirements=E2=80=9D, cause as = replied elsewhere, = some part of the BSD sockets would probably not be welcome (raw sockets)= . > Or, if sockets are as important as, say, timers, or windows---if they > are important, then enlighten industry (or govt.) that they have the = > power > to ask for compiler-independent packages. These would not even > need ISO standardization, just compiler independence, to be used > by industry. May be an option, I agree. Still that as replied elsewhere, you still la= ck = an answer to the other option : why would fund the rejection ? > No one else has the power. Pragmatism would suggest the community of active developers (proprietary= = or not). > Remembering industry's built-in rewards system for anti-co-operation, > its power to influence the software makers towards generally useful > packages is unlikely to be employed, though. (Packages that could > be used with a different compiler! By a different company!?) There is no way to be afraid of such things with sockets. Or do you see = = some ? > The original question was, "Why no socket package in the standard?". > > Let me rephrase it: "Why no ISO/IEC 14519:2001 package in the standard= ?" There is no way to rephrase it this way. POSIX is not comparable to = sockets. -- = Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c=E2=80=99es= t pas pour = les chiens. =E2=80=9C c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */ =E2=80= =9D [Anonymous]