Mark Fox (firstname.lastname@example.org)
23 Jul 87 21:25:05 GMT
In article <In article <278@unixprt.UUCP> In article <278@unixprt.UUCP> monkey@unixprt.UUCP (Monkey In article <278@unixprt.UUCP> monkey@unixprt.UUCP (Monkey Face@unixprt) writes:
>In article <>In article <649@houxa.UUCP>, >In article <649@houxa.UUCP>, mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes:
>> Would someone please post a summary of reasons why use of Streams is
>> an advantage... is there a reason Streams is better? than sockets?...
>> Does the end user see any advantage?...
>The primary advantage, for those using ATT based UNIX, is that this is the
>only 'real' facility provided in UNIX System V to support networking.
Possible, but have you seen HP's or CPC's implementation of sockets in their
System V ports? Looks plenty "real" to me and cleanly done as well.
>It is not necessarily 'better', but it is a more appropriately structure
>for the varying protocols than other implementations (such as the
>4.x BSD architecture).
What do you mean by "a more appropriate[ly] structure"? Could you back this up
or is this only an opinion?
>Hopefully the 'end-user' doesn't get involved
>at this level.
But with 4.x all the end-user needs to know is a host name in order to use
the Berkeley "r" utilities assuming NFS across remote mount points is not being
>ATT's Transport Interface is mostly base on the ISO
>transport interface, therefore should map to the emerging interface
But its easy enough to add new socket types as Sun has for its
OSI protocol implementation.
>I have found that performance is not considerably
>different in s STREAMS based vs. 4.x BSD based implemetnation of TCP/IP.
>Monkey Face - uni-xperts
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a socket bigot - but I have never seen an
implementation of streams and I am still curious why some people prefer them.
-- Mark Fox Applix Inc., 112 Turnpike Road, Westboro, MA 01581, (617) 870-0300 uucp: seismo!harvard!m2c!applix!mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:38:47 GMT