Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!decvax!eagle_snax!geoff From: geoff@eagle_snax.UUCP ( R.H. coast near the top) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Re: standard interface Message-ID: <219@eagle_snax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 8-Nov-87 06:28:03 EST Article-I.D.: eagle_sn.219 Posted: Sun Nov 8 06:28:03 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Nov-87 06:34:20 EST References: Lines: 29 Summary: sounds good, but beware..... In article , ddp+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Drew Daniel Perkins) writes: > Therefore, I am proposing that we should develop a standard for a BSD socket > interface on PC's. The standard should probably be interrupt based. > Everyone is quite familiar with them. I've convinced myself and atleast one > of the far call advocates that the small performance improvement of far > calls vs. interrupts will get lost compared to everything else. Other > issues are exactly which BSD calls should be supported, which interrupt, > should it be dynamic, etc. Actually there is another subtle problem: do you want to implement true BSD compatibility and allow reads, writes, ioctls, etc. on socket descriptors? If so, you need another chunk of software in the form of a socket device driver which plays by DOS's rules. We've done this for PC-NFS, but it was by no means easy: consider all of the potential control-break scenarios, for example. > > I would also like to propose that we schedule a BOF at the TCP/IP conference > in December. Comments? > > Drew Sounds great to me. See you there. -- Geoff Arnold, Sun Microsystems | "What is appropriate for the master is not SPD at ECD (home of PC-NFS) | appropriate for the novice. You must UUCP:{ihnp4,decwrl...}!sun!garnold | understand Tao before transcending struc- ARPA:garnold@sun.com | ture." [The Tao of Programming, p.39]