[150734] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dns and software, was Re: Reliable Cloud host ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Mar 2 01:07:36 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGV9JP8ufLAJpuPLecAqm-PGT_edzee+J=FH53uzo6OTkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 22:03:19 -0800
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:34 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 5:15 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>> There's no need to
>>>> break the current functionality of the underlying system calls and
>>>> libc functions which would be needed by any such library anyway.
>>>=20
>>> Owen,
>>>=20
>>> Point to one sentence written by anybody in this entire thread in
>>> which breaking current functionality was proposed.
>>>=20
>> When you said that:
>>=20
>> connect(char *name, uint16_t port) should work
>>=20
>> That can't work without breaking the existing functionality of the =
connect() system call.
>=20
> You know, when I wrote 'socket=3Dconnect("www.google.com",80,TCP);' I
> stopped and thought to myself, "I wonder if I should change that to
> 'connectbyname' instead just to make it clear that I'm not replacing
> the existing connect() call?" But then I thought, "No, there's a
> thousand ways someone determined to misunderstand what I'm saying will
> find to misunderstand it. To someone who wants to understand my point,
> this is crystal clear."
I'm all for additional library functionality built on top of what exists =
that does what you want.
As I said, there are many such libraries out there to do that.
If someone wants to add it to libc, more power to them. I'm not the libc =
maintainer.
I just don't want conect() to stop working the way it does or for =
getaddrinfo() to stop
working the way it does.
Since you were hell bent on calling the existing mechanisms broken =
rather than
conceding the point that the current process is not broken, but, could =
stand some
improvements in the library (http://owend.corp.he.net/ipv6 I even say as =
much myself),
it was not entirely clear that you did not intend to replace connect() =
rather than
augment the current capabilities with additional more abstract functions =
with
different names.
Owen
