[openbeosnetteam] Re: libnetwork.so vs. libsocket.so/libbind.so

Axel,

> does anybody the rationale behind going for libnetwork.so?
> Is it only there to be able to have a fresh start? If so, I'd prefer
> going the libsocket.so/libbind.so route in our stack - even though I
> like libnetwork.so better, I can't stand the code duplication and
> library cluttering for almost nothing.

The best would be to dynamically detect the ABI interface between R5, BONE and
our ABI at runtime, not compile time.
If we want to continue the BeOS Kit way, I don't see why we should split the
*official* networking kit into several libraries (libnet.so & libnetapi.so for
R5, libsocket.so, libbind.so & libbnetapi.so for BONE) but just put them in one
single library: libnet[work].so.

I for example have merge libglut.so into libGL.so. I really dislike the idea of
having a too messy /boot/beos/system/libs folder out-of-box.
This kind of mess should be 3rd party opportunity only ;-)

> Maybe I should see if our loader could support having both libsocket.so
> and libbind.so symlink to the one and only libnetwork.so instead.

That trick works under R5, AFAIK. I use it everytime to switch between Mesa3D
libGL.so libraries... And I fail to see why we should NOT support it under
Haiku, whatever the libraries. Network-related or not.

Philippe.

Other related posts: