home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
-
- In article <523@usenix.ORG> fouts@bozeman.bozeman.ingr (Martin Fouts) writes:
- > My aren't we superior. (;-) At one time, I believed that sockets
- > belonged in the filesystem name space. I spent a long time arguing
- > this point with members of the networking community before they
- > convinced me that certain transient objects do not belong in that name
- > space. (See below)
-
- You mean things that don't operate like a single bidirectional stream, like
- pipes? It's funny that the sockets that *do* behave that way are not in the
- file system, while UNIX-domain sockets (which have two ends on the local box)
- are.
-
- > Unix programming has a history of using the filesystem for some things
- > and not using it for others.
-
- UNIX programming has a history of using whatever ad-hoc hacks were needed
- to get things working. It's full of evolutionary dead-ends... some of which
- have been discarded (multiplexed files) and some of which have been patched
- up and overloaded (file protection bits). But where things have moved closer
- to the underlying principles (everything is a file, for example) it's become
- the better for it.
-
- > Sometimes there are objects which would be
- > reasonable to treat with filesystem semantics for which there is no
- > reasonable mechanism for introducing them into the filesystem name
- > space.
-
- This seems reasonable, but the rest is a pure argument from authority.
- Could you repeat these arguments for the benefit of hose of us who don't
- have the good fortune to know these networking experts you speak of?
-
- [ Everyone involved in this discussion, please try to keep it in a
- technical, not a personal, vein. -mod ]
-
- --
- Peter da Silva. `-_-'
- +1 713 274 5180. 'U`
- peter@ferranti.com
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 127
-
-