FreeLists / openbeosnetteam / [openbeosnetteam] Re: BIND port

["Philippe Houdoin" <philippe.houdoin@xxxxxxx>]

HI again.

> Hi everyone,
> the BIND port (9.2.3) is nearly finished. For complete BONE 
> compatibility we need all *_r() functions which depend on some pthread 
functions. I hope they are not too difficult to port.

Can't we use BeOS Thead Local Storage (TLS) for that, instead on having 
to port/rely on pthread support.
And I'm not saying that because I find pthread API ugly compared to 
BeOS one... ;-)

> Please tell me before you change our posix network headers because I 
> will replace many of them with the new BIND headers (in my local 
repository this is already done). I would not like to mess around with 
CVS merging failures.

You need to fix many POSIX network headers because of BIND v9.2.3 !?

> Is it okay if libnet.so stays with the old BIND version? I do not 
> know how else we can export the needed fuctions. It is a bit hacky, but 
if it works why change it... 

Until we reach R1, we can always change whatever we want to make stuffs 
better named and/or placed, simpler, easier to maintains, etc.
After it will be far harder.
Nobody except us and maybe some anonymous adventurers are using our 
current libnet.so implementation, so we can break it.

Can't we update the whole old BIND version we have instead? I really 
don't like this dual code design introduce for BONE compatibility, when 
the difference are very small (but hard to automaticly detect, I 
agree!).

> with BONE compatibility there is not much use for a clean libnet.so 
> and old R5 apps, anyway.

Well, except that *our* libnet.so was not supposed to be *only* for old 
R5 apps at first.

- Philippe

--
Fortune Cookie Says:

"Thirty days hath Septober,
April, June, and no wonder.
all the rest have peanut butter
except my father who wears red suspenders."