On Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:01:31 +0100 (BST), Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
[ snip ]
>I see XTI (TLI is notionally at least not a real standard, X/Open and POSIX both
>specify the subtley different XTI standard for their streams) support as mostly
>user space possibly with a few kernel pieces, and contrary to a few opinions I
>at least don't see anything wrong with those kernel extras existing providing
>they are either tiny or optional, and don't impact any of the existing fast
>data paths.
XTI is subtley different ?? You jest !! Ever tried porting a package that
uses full TLI extensively onto a system (AIX OSI) that only supports the
mandatory interfaces specified in XTI, and none of the optional ones ??
To say it's a bitch would be an understatement. I ended up with #ifdef's
everywhere. I really should have "downgraded" our interface routines
to use XTI-mandatory API's only.
[ more snip ]
-- Mike Pellatt, VCS Limited (A Knowledge Group company) Tel: (+44) 117 9007500 Fax: (+44) 117 9007501 Mobile: (+44) 468 192021 Home Page: http://www.ktgroup.co.uk/~mike/