Newsgroups: news.software.b
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NNTP vs Cnews (was: Re: Cnews is not for me)
Message-ID: <1989Aug25.201222.5513@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <2828@ndsuvax.UUCP> <1989Aug12.221624.12153@utstat.uucp> <1894@ucsd.EDU> <1989Aug13.071802.5187@utzoo.uucp> <527@logicon.arpa> <9636@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> <1989Aug16.182527.24840@utzoo.uucp> <47046@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 20:12:22 GMT

In article <47046@oliveb.olivetti.com> jerry@olivey.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes:
>So, do we write for the "lowest common denominator"?  Use temporary
>files for IPC?  Worry about address space for PDP11s and small model
>PCs?  No standard file locking?  I can't see us getting clean high
>performance code that way...

Uh, we managed it for C News.  We use no funny IPC mechanisms, run quite
successfully in small address spaces, use link(2) for locking (which is
fully portable), and get clean high-performance code at the end of it all.

We have a submission in to the winter Usenix of a paper talking about how
we do it.

>... else that needs a guru or AI to configure.  (Is my rindex fast?,
>Do I even HAVE rindex?)

If you don't have rindex, you don't get asked that question.  If you do,
it matters whether it is fast or not, and there is no way we can figure
it out for you.  Which flavor of Unix you have is irrelevant; the answer
is *very* machine-specific and vendor-specific.  The current version of
build adds "(okay to guess)" on that question.

>What I am contemplating is totaly separate versions of code for the
>major versions of Unix...

Talk about maintenance nightmares...  Geoff and I refuse to abandon
portability, even if it means a bit more work.  (The amount of work
should lessen in coming years, as POSIX compliance and ANSI C compliance
become widespread.)
-- 
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu