On Sun, 26 May 2002, Rocco Lucia wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:31:54AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > some comments..
> >
> > 1/ it may be more useful to not make any distinction between
> > 'in' and 'out' hooks but just have connections..
> > The hooks could be given purely arbitrary names
> > e.g. "source1" and "suspicious"
> > a hook could be configured as being 'read-only' by command
> > rather than by special name.. (though special names are
> > not a very bad way of doing it..
> > "out-normal"
> > and
> > "out-dubious"
> >
>
> Ah, sure, that's a good idea, I'm going to rework it to be able
> to set node behavior sending it messages... that would consume
> some more cycles per packet tho. Thank you for the suggestion :)
not neccesarily..
use the per-hook private pointer to point to pre-configured
stuff.
k
>
> --
> Rocco Lucia - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iscanet Internet Services
> http://elisa.utopianet.net/~rlucia System and Network Admin
> C6E6 AC9A 1361 FB38 B47A 2792 9FC4 C52F 7A68 4468
>
> Free unices for a free world. Support *BSD.
>
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
