Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello all,

please see my comments below....

> At least I would like a portability between UNIX and Windows.
> But I'm afraid that the sockaddr_in is different (please correct me if I'm
> wrong). ASCII format (or char[]) will work everywhere.
>

winsock.h does provide

struct sockaddr
struct sockaddr_in

so that should not be the problem.


> > > let's not reinvent the wheel
> >
> > Even though it didn't sound like it, I actually agree with you and don't
> > like the idea of passing addresses around as ascii data. I'm just trying
> > to understand the portability requirements of this interface.
> >
> > If the interface is to be slightly less portable, but more familiar to
> > most, then it should probably rely on some of the popular standardized
> > data types. Personally, I'm happy with func(sockaddr *addr, int addr_len)
> > where addr points to either a sockaddr_in or sockaddr_in6. This would
> > also seem to be in line with the sctp socket draft standard. As for the
> > other data types used by the interface, it would seem reasonable to
> > assume the POSIX 1003.1g definitions for intN_t, uintN_t, size_t, etc.
> >
> > What are the portability requirements of this interface?

I think the way to eventually go will be back to what I had
before - a union of sockaddr, sockaddr_in, and maybe sockaddr_in6.
After all that does not cause any portability problems at all
(it is a plain C union :-)

But please let me repeat: unless there should be a majority of the
Siemens M3UA developers supporting that change, I will not do so
until after the the SCTP and M3UA bakeoffs.

Best regards,

Andreas Jungmaier

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Jungmaier, Dipl.-Ing.
University of Essen email:
ajung AT exp-math.uni-essen.de
Computer Networking Technology Group Tel. : +49 (0201) 183-7636
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP Public Key and Fingerprint: see http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~ajung
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6zKGcd2Uw+xBvGUIRApDpAJoC+YeB828LPqVNe763i7fTJdwRzQCfY1Gm
NHxTphPy+PLm8rpI6ccP6zU=
=FGlQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

• AW: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?, Schruefer Wolfgang, 04/03/2001
  • Re: AW: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?, Andreas Jungmaier, 04/03/2001
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • AW: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?, Schruefer Wolfgang, 04/05/2001
  • AW: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?, Schruefer Wolfgang, 04/05/2001
    • [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Andreas Jungmaier, 04/05/2001
      • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Marc Boucher, 04/05/2001
        • Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Michael Tüxen, 04/05/2001
          • Re: Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Marc Boucher, 04/06/2001
            • Re(4): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Michael Tüxen, 04/06/2001
              • Re: Re(4): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Marc Boucher, 04/06/2001
              • Re(6): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Michael Tüxen, 04/06/2001

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.