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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <op.vvyoslycule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <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$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <xazx5pxeo547.154hwuxjjylbs$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ddbc090$0$6582$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <n3mag6awan4j$.1mjwql1dnpgfg.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ddbd889$0$6626$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:36:42 +0200
Message-ID: <p99i5h4fr7fy.1r87a7tnnq1s0.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 2011 21:36:41 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: cf9ddc46.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=FWdWHPIYNlN0YVY]kmLTlDMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOKc0cZF<kE=eE[6LHn;2LCVN[<mhadbfdUK483Pi^N;\5O7:?0Y@6eVTD
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20389
Date: 2011-05-24T21:36:41+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 24 May 2011 18:10:49 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 24.05.11 16:59, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:28:32 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24.05.11 14:53, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Communication between programs
>>>> is distribution, the annex E.
>>>
>>> Yes.  If the endpoints of communication are Ada partitions.
>>> Otherwise ...?
>> 
>> Non-Ada programs = non-programs. No offence to other languages meant, it is
>> just so that we cannot communicate them at this height of abstraction
>> level.
> 
> But we do have an ORB style of distribution; and since ORBs
> can be language neutral, Non-Ada programs might be programs,
> again.

Yes. That would be a very different level, and usage under 1%.

>>> 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.
>> 
>> From CAN Open, ASAP, ASAM etc? Are you kidding?
> 
> No, I mean transport as a concept, considering pay load,
> buffers, timeouts, latency; interaction with possible RTSs;
> things that matter to programming the level in question.
> E.g., is there anything special regarding interrupt handling
> when it comes to receiving data?  (Likely not, I think?)

Those look non-functional (QoS etc). What about starting with the
functional part. That looks pretty weak.
 
>>> 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?"
>> 
>> I cannot say. I do not care much about POSIX, maybe, others do not either.
>> Why is it relevant to sockets?
> 
> http://www.cs.scranton.edu/~beidler/Ada/posix/posix-sockets-internet.html
> 
> Or so I thought, at least.

I see, you meant POSIX sockets.

BTW, IPPROTO_RAW does not work under Windows (I didn't test VxWorks). Does
it mean that Ada standard should require RTL to provide an NDIS to hack
that?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de