Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:6236 comp.protocols.ibm:1494 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:13415
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!prls!pyramid!lstowell
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.ibm,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Can One API Support Both TCP/IP and LU 6.2?
Message-ID: <130905@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 18 Oct 90 18:56:38 GMT
Sender: daemon@pyramid.pyramid.com
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 30

Yes, you can build a common API.  CPI-C on the AS/400 is such a
product, you can run TCP/IP, OSI, SNA from the same API.  The
difficulty in naming conventions is hidden in the fine print of
such API's....as are the other differences in these protocol
stacks.  All of them provide essentially similar services, but
the LAYER within which a specific service is performed as well
as the implementation method varies widely.

The IBM technique is to note that all of the naming, route
discovery, etc. methods are "implementation specific" and that
they are utility functions performed by the Physical Unit.

Not only do the naming conventions of LU 6.2 differ from TCP/IP,
the techniques for route discovery and routing differ as well.
About the only thing the two have in common is the ability to
provide a high level common API.   

Such a "generic" API implementation will never be as efficient
as a protocol specific one, but it sure makes things a LOT
easier on programmers, user's etc.  RAM is cheap, and MIPS are
always available.  Programmer's blood pressure and sanity are
a little more precious.....


            /|
	\'o.O'
	=(___)=
	   U

     THPTH! ACKHH!