Re: Streams TCP/IP


Dave Brown (uunet!mnetor!yetti!geac!daveb@seismo.css.gov)
24 Jul 87 13:27:08 GMT


In article <In article <561@applix.UUCP> In article <561@applix.UUCP> mark@applix.UUCP (Mark Fox) 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?...
>...
>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.

  There is interest in streams for several reasons.
        1) It looks elegant.
        2) It comes from an acknowleged Unix expert.
        3) It *looks* (emphais added) more general than sockets.
        4) It allows a structured decomposition of some of the
           hot-spots in Unix (terminal handling, protocols)
           into subparts which can be placed on a front-end
           processor.
  There is use of streams for other reasons.
        1) Bell provides it instead of sockets.
        2) Some customers will buy anthing that Berkley *doesn't* make.
        3) Some system/hardware designers want (4) above.
        4) Some system/hardware designers have fallen in love with
           any of the above.

  Personally, I like (4), having worked on a machine which used
FEPs effectively (as well as two which didn't, all from the same
manufacturer!).

        --dave (unix hack on a 'bun) collier-brown

--
 David (Collier-) Brown.	      |	 Computer Science
 Geac Computers	International Inc.,   |	 loses its memory
 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, |	 (if not its mind)
 CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525	x3279 |	 every 6 months.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:38:48 GMT