Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!MCMASTER.BITNET!BEAME
From: BEAME@MCMASTER.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: An attempt to rekindle interface discuissions...
Message-ID: <8803032305.aa01908@Louie.UDEL.EDU>
Date: 4 Mar 88 04:06:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 40

>I don't mind the idea of sockets as an interface;  We did an emulation of
>them for our 2.0 release, primarily to allow existing Berkeley code to be
>ported to DOS.

I have to agree that I don't mind sockets for an interface, but I don't
feel that it can be the only interface because of the inability to provide
for ansyc. interrupts{

At Beame & Whiteside Software LTD. we have our own socket emulation
library.

Our sockets:
        Support read/write,as well as descriptor reading/writing
                           using standard C routines

        Support select(), on all C channels

        Support ioctl()  (some calls)

        Support send(), sendto(), recv() and recvfrom().

        Support listen().

        Support get/setsockopt(), connect(), bind() ... gethostbyname() ...

        Support setitimer(),getitimer(),alarm()

>What we have done is define our own native-mode interface,
>standardized around register contents in an interrupt instruction.  This
>has copious asynch facilities, and is broad enough that the socket emulation
>was relatively simple to do on top of it.

This is much the same for our code. I have been wondering if it would be
possible to have the select() routine on initial activation, terminate and
stay resident. Then when a network event occurs, have the process "called"
within the select() routine and have it continue normal processing of the
code.


     - Carl Beame
       Beame@McMaster.BITNET