On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 12:40:12PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > "Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If the Hurd will not define MAXHOSTNAMELEN nor HOST_NAME_MAX, then > > indeed there really isn't a good choice. We'd have to use sysconf or > > _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX or what we `know' _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX to be. > > I think it's a pity. > > You seriously think this is better? You don't care at all about > providing the best system for users you can? Why would you > deliberately choose an inferior solution?
Are referring to the fact that I would prefer to use a manifest constant versus sysconf or looping until a fit is found? Clearly I don't think that is an inferior solution, but rather a practical one. Flame on if you like, but we simply disagree. > > = On that same set of systems, where stupidly long host names are > > used, calling xgethostname is expensive because the function does > > not keep track of how much memory it needed last time. > > Oh please! Call it once. You can't just call it once; the hostname can change during the application's run. > You really think this is a serious cost in > a program that is doing lots of encryption?? No, I don't -- I just think it is a bug. One which is easy to fix for the single-threaded case. > It's not a mistake, it's a design principle: make nothing limited that > doesn't need to be. > > That is also a GNU design principle. > > We are trying to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past rather than > slavishly repeating them. As I said in an earlier message, I appreciate that. I also happen to believe that it has been misapplied here. Cheers, -- Jacques A. Vidrine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.nectar.com/ Verio Web Hosting = FreeBSD UNIX = Heimdal Kerberos [EMAIL PROTECTED] = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
