"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 05:50:40PM -0700, Pier Fumagalli wrote: >>> While at OSCON, I chatted about having AF_UNIX support in APR with a bunch >>> of you, and I didn't hear any negative opinion from anyone... >>> >>> This would be so great for me, as it would ease my work with Java, in having >>> a generic IO layer a little bit better than the current Java.IO and with an >>> extensive support for all kinds of sockets... >>> >>> Are there strong feelings against it? Thanks... >> >> As one of the people you talked to at OSCON, here's my +1 for adding >> it. I've even submitted patches before to do this - the additional >> code is quite small. -- justin > > While the code is small, to the best of my knowledge, it is also not > portable. If it is portable, +1. If it is Unix only, -1.
Well, it is not a "globally portable" feature... As fork(), for instance, which doesn't exist on Windows, but still APR supports it. If AF_UNIX returned some APR_ENOIMPL under Windows, well, I'd be fine with it. The PITA about not having it is that I have (and I've done that already) to implement everything on my own, if I want to use AF_UNIX in those places where I need it. I believe that having the advantage to use a specific feature such as AF_UNIX (which is common to all platforms but Windows AFAIK, dunno about OS/390, but...) in a portable way together with AF_INET sockets IMO is FAR GREATER than checking for an APR_ENOIMPL return value when someone under stupid Windows tries to create a socket with a path. Look at my example here: http://dev.betaversion.org/svn/jerry/head/jerry/java/org/betaversion/jerry/s ocket/ I have a set of native acceptors (AF_???? server sockets), and right now, for the stupid implementation, I cannot rely on APR, because it does not support AF_UNIX... http://dev.betaversion.org/svn/jerry/head/jerry/native/ So, I have to reimplement for "simplicity" also AF_INET, because in that case, I have one "interface" (the stupid file descriptor), that works for both of them, and I don't have to write my own little API different from FDs, different from APR, different from everything to use FDs on AF_UNIX, and APR on AF_INET... If APR provided me AF_UNIX, I would just use that... Please, don't make the same stupid mistake that Java did. I'm bashing my head on the wall everytime I see the java.net classes because they are not extensible, and because every time that someone wants to use AF_UNIX, they have to write it on their own... Ok, it doesn't work on Windows, but it works on another 2 bazillions of UNIX implementations... Pretty please with sugar on top... Pier (how many times can you count "stupid" in this email?)
