On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:08 PM, David Ashley wrote:
>
> Here are the requirements for a common library (Windows or Linux) which
> handles both IPv4 and IPv6.
>
> ...
> 2. A Windows server socket must use the setsockopt API to set the
> IPV6_V6ONLY option to zero before binding the socket to an
I have done some research and here is how IPv6 works out for Windows.
Any version of Windows from Vista forward is fully compatible with the
Linux APIs and functionality (with one minor exception easily handled in
a common library, see below).
Here are the requirements for a common library (Window
I kinda like Mike's suggestion, to have a new set of functions to
support IP6. Now if the newer IP6 stuff can work correctly in IP4 or
IP6 then I think we have a winner. Existing stuff would continue to work
under IP4, and when an applications code is converted to use the new IP6
functions it
I realise that Sockets and TCP are directly related, and that UDP is not
quite as related, would it be possible to provide for UDP, etc. type
functionality, even if not implemented immediately?
While I am not a C/C++ programmer, I have prototyped "Internet" based
systems using ooRexx...
I als
> I have very mixed emotion about the current rxsock library.
> Let me just list some thoughts in no particular order.
>
> - The rxsock library is extremely complicated to use. You
> have to really know how sockets work in order to use it.
On the other hand, if you've already used sockets in (
I have very mixed emotion about the current rxsock library. Let me just
list some thoughts in no particular order.
- The rxsock library is extremely complicated to use. You have to really
know how sockets work in order to use it. There is not a high-level
interface to it which is why I wrote rxsoc
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
>
> Maybe just add a new library ('rxsock6'?) which is unencumbered by past
> history.
>
>
Well, that is really more of what I meant. A new extension that was
unencumbered by the original rxsock design. But one that supported both
IPv4 and
One of the thoughts I had before David posted the beginning of this thread is
that maybe we could use this opportunity to update rxsock itself, so that it
better uses the newish APIs and is object orientated than rather than
procedural.
Upwards-compatible could be tricky.
Maybe just add
Greetings Mark,
I am choosing to overlook your pointed jabs at my "Amish Computer Virus" ways.
( http://www.upperregister.com/~charlie/AmishVirus.html )
Mark Miesfeld wrote:
> In addition, Rick is already concerned about people not being able to upgrade
> ooRexx because of a dependency on .Net
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> To me, it sounds like option 4 of using IPV4 mapped to IPV6 is the
> cleanest way to implement this. I'm wondering if we might want to take the
> approach used with oodialog and separate the rxsock library from the
> interpreter release. T
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Michael Lueck
wrote:
> (sssiiggghh...) That is a most unfortunate situation.
>
Most people don't call this unfortunate, they call it progress.
>
> So all of a sudden, to install ooRexx, ooRexx will be dragging along .Net
> onto target boxes. Bloat, bloat, bloat.
The problem is not with the APIs but with the way the libraries work
underneath the APIs. The newer .Net replaces the underlying libraries.
The situation may not be as bad as it sounds. I need to do more research
to see what version of .Net we need and what versions were shipped with
each OS and a
David Ashley wrote:
> Later versions of .Net replace the
> original libraries for ones that work like Linux (99% at least).
(sssiiggghh...) That is a most unfortunate situation.
So all of a sudden, to install ooRexx, ooRexx will be dragging along .Net onto
target boxes. Bloat, bloat, bloat...
There is a native TCP/IP API for Windows. However, older versions of
Windows do not have the TCP/IP functionality we need, some of the APIs
work differently than on Linux. Later versions of .Net replace the
original libraries for ones that work like Linux (99% at least).
David Ashley
On Mon, 2014
David Ashley wrote:
> 1. As always, the Windows implementation of IPv6 will cause us some
> pain. We really need to use the latest version of .Net
IPv6 within Windows does not have a native C/C++ interface, only .Net?
Blessings,
--
Michael Lueck
Lueck Data Systems
http://www.lueckdatasystems.c
While I like option 4 there are some things that need to be checked out.
For instance, will this option work when there is no set up for IPv6 on
the adapter? So far I have not been able to determine that from anything
I have read. I am sure there are some other things to check out as well.
As to s
To me, it sounds like option 4 of using IPV4 mapped to IPV6 is the cleanest
way to implement this. I'm wondering if we might want to take the approach
used with oodialog and separate the rxsock library from the interpreter
release. The Windows installer could then check the prereqs to ensure it
c
Time for some discussion about how to implement IPv6 for rxsock. There
are some fundamental questions about how to implement this in order to
keep the library functions compatible between IPv4 and IPv6. The
following are some discussion points.
1. As always, the Windows implementation of IPv6 will
18 matches
Mail list logo
