Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!TWG.COM!ljm
From: ljm@TWG.COM
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Sockets, TLI, or what
Message-ID: <9101021513.aa02786@Mercury.TWG.COM>
Date: 3 Jan 91 09:41:56 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 33

>
>If you are concerned with portability (and the original poster was), you
>can't ignore TLI and streams.  It is the socket interface that will be
>going away (but not for a *long* time...).
>	

I usually find the most useful way to explain the relationship of TLI
and sockets is to consider TLI the 'native' transport interface for
UNIX and sockets is more of a cross-platform API.

Thus, the native interface for UNIX is TLI which is different from the
native interface for the Macintosh, MacTCP, which is different from the
native interface(s) for DOS, FTP Software's or our's or whatever, which
is different from the native interface on VMS, and so on.

The tradeoff is usually quite simple.  On all the platforms, the native
interface offers unique advantages to the developer of system specific
applications in terms of memory usage, performance, functionality or
perhaps
all three.  However, a sockets API is available on all of these platforms.

So, if you are absolutely sure that your application will only
run on one of them, or if your application absolutely requires the improved
functionallity only present in the native interface, then use it.

Otherwise, use the sockets API as it will ease the port of your application
to different platforms (or even same platform/different vendor in the DOS
and OS/2 cases).

enjoy,
leo j mclaughlin iii
The Wollongong Group
ljm@twg.com