Thread View: comp.protocols.iso
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by P1003.12 Committee
Tue, 27 Nov 1990 19:20
Your Chance to Influence POSIX!
Author: P1003.12 Committee
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 1990 19:20
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 1990 19:20
30 lines
1967 bytes
1967 bytes
The POSIX process-to-process communications working group (P1003.12) would like to solicit outside comment. The committee wishes to publish an interface at the level of exposed detail exhibited by both sockets and XTI. Previously, the committee had been of the opinion that although both sets of existing practice were relatively similar, each had technical flaws. Furthermore, each had a user community unwilling to give theirs up and adopt the other. The working solution the commitee had been pursuing was to combine the the best features of the two interfaces, changing the names and semantics of the primitives, so that some amount of re-coding would be necessary. The committee was using as its model the level of modification done to the job control and termios facilities of P1003.1 There has recently been vociferous opposition to this plan, arguing that vendors would have to support THREE interfaces (sockets, XTI and POSIX) and it would be better to have the P1003.12 committee issue IEEE standard versions of the existing two, with possible backwards compatible extensions and improvements. We invite you to submit your reactions to dot12@okeeffe.Berkeley.EDU for consideration by the committee. It would be helpful to some of us if you would say something about your background or experience with either of XTI or sockets. Keith Sklower Computer Science Dept. sklower@okeeffe.Berkeley.EDU 570 Evans Hall (415) 642-9587 University of California H: (415) 863-0990 Berkeley, CA 94720
Re: Your Chance to Influence POSIX!
Author: Craig Partridge
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 1990 20:42
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 1990 20:42
17 lines
1197 bytes
1197 bytes
In article <39762@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> dot12@okeeffe.berkeley.edu (P1003.12 Committee) writes:
>The working solution the commitee had been pursuing was to combine
>the the best features of the two interfaces, changing the names and
>semantics of the primitives, so that some amount of re-coding would
>be necessary.
Keith et. al.
Pardon the public reply but I had a question I thought others
might find of interest.
Were the changes being considered inconsistent with having libraries
that implemented the socket and/or XTI interfaces on top of them? I.e.
could a vendor implement a socket library that called the P1003.12
primitives?
Craig
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads