Monkey Face@unixprt (firstname.lastname@example.org)
28 Jul 87 04:15:09 GMT
I'm not sure that this is worth it, but what the heck...
In article <In article <email@example.com>, guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
> > 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.
> Gee...people at Berkeley have been using an "AT&T-based UNIX"...
> that supports networking without STREAMS. Plenty of other
> people have dropped the socket code into System V kernels...
> Berkeley dropped it into a 32V-derived kernel, so STREAMS are not
> "the only game in town".
I only meant that STREAMS is what you get with the current versions from
ATT, without the cost of re-porting to each new AT&T release, you
don't get sockets or anything else. A vendor that must rely on ATT
to provide a base, a strategy based on sockets does not seem appropriate
in the long term.
> > ATT's Transport Interface is mostly base on the ISO transport interface,
> > therefore should map to the emerging interface standards.
> Unfortunately, the TLI also has a number of warts...it keeps some state
> both in userland and in the kernel...after a "fork"/"exec" you
> have to issue a "t_sync" call to...(get)... kernel's...state into userland.
> Guy Harris
So what? Warts can be removed, if deemed necessary.
My response to a question someone asked was not meant to support or
criticize STREAMS or the Socket implementation in 4.x based systems.
I was only offering my opinion based on experience with STREAMS. I have
also ported the socket code the System V version of UNIX and think that
sockets are a very good base for network implementation.
How tall is Guy Harris anyway?
Monkey Face - uni-xperts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:38:48 GMT