Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!phri!cmcl2!hsdndev!bbn.com!craig
From: craig@bbn.com (Craig Partridge)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: Your Chance to Influence POSIX!
Message-ID: <61139@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 27 Nov 90 20:42:59 GMT
References: <39762@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Reply-To: craig@ws6.nnsc.nsf.net.BBN.COM (Craig Partridge)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 17

In article <39762@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> dot12@okeeffe.berkeley.edu (P1003.12 Committee) writes:
>The working solution the commitee had been pursuing was to combine
>the the best features of the two interfaces, changing the names and
>semantics of the primitives, so that some amount of re-coding would
>be necessary.

Keith et. al.

    Pardon the public reply but I had a question I thought others
might find of interest.

    Were the changes being considered inconsistent with having libraries
that implemented the socket and/or XTI interfaces on top of them?  I.e.
could a vendor implement a socket library that called the P1003.12 
primitives?

Craig