Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!bridge2!3comvax!tymix!cirrusl!sunstorm!dhesi
From: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Sockets, TLI, or what
Message-ID: <2875@cirrusl.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 91 18:53:52 GMT
References: <9101021513.aa02786@Mercury.TWG.COM>
Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Lines: 21

In <9101021513.aa02786@Mercury.TWG.COM> ljm@TWG.COM writes:

     ...consider TLI the 'native' transport interface for
     UNIX and sockets is more of a cross-platform API.

As others have pointed out, you should have said System V, not UNIX.

     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.

This is where I get puzzled.  I have read the comparison of sockets vs
TLI in Stevens's book, and I've read AT&T's documentation.  All I can
find is that TLI has some bugs (e.g. failed writes not correctly
reported).  I don't see what TLI does so much better than sockets.  Is
TLI more than another manifestation of the NIH syndrome?  What are its
performance, functionality, and memory usage benefits?
--
History never         |   Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com>
becomes obsolete.     |   UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi