On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Julian Elischer wrote:
I'm happy to (eventually) also implement the BSDI API once I actually
spend time looking at what the difference in behaviours are. If we're
lucky, the only difference is where the socket option hooks in and the
actual network behaviour is the same.
(Meanwhile, I think I have to go off and implement this particular
behaviour in Squid, and see if the OpenBSD support indeed does function as
advertised.)
If the API turns out to be effectly semantically the same, or better, then
I think the suggestion is to entirely replace, rather than supplement, the
socket option you just added with it. There's no point in having
pointlessly divergent APIs where it can be avoided.
I think just making the name the same should be enough..
Well, I think that depends. If it's a SOL_SOCKET-layer option, we still need
some way for the protocol layer to either accept or veto setting the option,
depending on whether it supports it. For example, I think SPX sockets should
reject the option being set if they don't support it, so we'll need to figure
out something there to either pass down the SOL_SOCKET option explicitly, or
check with the protocol somehow as to whether or not to accept it.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
