Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpnmdla!darrylo
From: darrylo@hpnmdla.hp.com (Darryl Okahata)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: ESIX sockets
Message-ID: <12870015@hpnmdla.hp.com>
Date: 10 Apr 91 22:35:36 GMT
References: <1991Mar28.042703.27887@colorado.edu>
Organization: HP Network Measurements Div, Santa Rosa, CA
Lines: 37

In comp.unix.sysv386, bir7@ypig.stanford.edu (Ross Biro) writes:

> 	ESIX sockets are close enough to BSD sockets to port almost
> anything without trouble.  I've had more problems from signal handlers
> than from sockets.  The only thing you need to watch out for is that
> you cannot use read or write with the sockets.  The rest is easy, just
> remember that they were built on top of the transport library. A small
> list of some of the things I've gotten to work using sockets under
> ESIX: X, finger, fingerd, inetd, telnet, ftp, libresolv.a, tinymud...
>
> Quit whining and try a little.  I did all this without the manuals,
> just some bsd man pages and a little effort.

     Yes, ESIX "sockets" are "close".  However, they are sufficiently
different that ESIX should have *RENAMED* the functions.  For example,
here is the ESIX version of "listen":

        listen(s, call)
        int		s;
        struct t_call	**call;

Here is the "REAL BSD" version:

        listen(s, backlog)
        int	s;
	int	backlog;

Are these functions the same?  No!  While they may be "easy" to port
(this is highly program-dependent), they are very confusing at first.

     -- Darryl Okahata
	UUCP: {hplabs!, hpcea!, hpfcla!} hpnmd!darrylo
	Internet: darrylo%hpnmd@relay.hp.com

DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion or policy of Hewlett-Packard or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.