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,BIG5 Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!news.internetdienste.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" 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="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH 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> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:53:54 +0200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 2011 14:53:54 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 15594273.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=1]g=A`^L?dWAX0F2i> On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:00:24 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Opposing a get-that-duct-tape-solution-out�Vthe-door style for > standardization, I'd imagine starting from questions like the > following and then weigh POSIX sockets as the possible answer: > > - What should programs be able to do when communicating data > along some network connection? Well, this has nothing to do with sockets. Communication between programs is distribution, the annex E. Sockets are a about communication to the hardware, even if the other side is actually a program. > - Should there be a layered approach? How much detail? This is the above question again. If distribution meant, there is the program (application) level only. Then the question is not about the levels, but about the architecture of such communication (object vs event vs procedural vs data views etc) > - Where in the language will this integrate nicely? > (E.g. package structure? What types if any? Or anything > that has already been mentioned.) > > - Is sockets the right approach? Consider Erlang! An approach to what? > - Is sockets the right approach? Consider a CAN! CAN is not stream- or packet-oriented, not even Ethernet. Even Ethernet-based protocols, such as EtherCAT are have nothing to do with sockets. So are the protocols which actually use TCP/IP or UDP as a transport, e.g. ModBus, XCP etc. And for all of then (even for CAN, if talking about CAN Open) data exchange (the only thing sockets offer) is the least problem. Blurring transport and application level issues does not help. You seem to imply that there could be an application level solution. A much more moderate goal to standardize sockets is very difficult. > I doubt that the best answer to these questions can > be summed up by saying, "Mirror Posix sockets!". What was the question? (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de