home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!unogate!mvb.saic.com!info-multinet
- From: KVC@SUMMER.INNOSOFT.COM (Kevin V. Carosso)
- Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
- Subject: Re: porting Unix code to Multinet
- Message-ID: <01GSH25Q9E6U8WXEOZ@SUMMER.INNOSOFT.COM>
- Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:08:29 -0800 (PST)
- Organization: Info-Multinet<==>Vmsnet.Networks.Tcp-Ip.Multinet Gateway
- X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List
- Lines: 22
-
- > code? One approach is presumably to use the UCX emulation, where read(),
- > close(), and write() all take either sockets or fds. Is there any
- > downside to that?
-
- That's what I do, just use DEC's RTL and MultiNet's UCX emulation.
-
- > My options seem to be (0) to use the UCX emulation, (1) to duplicate the
- > library routines, and have the high level routines call the net- version
- > of the library if appropriate, (2) [almost equivalent] to add flag
- > parameters or global variables to communicate whether a particular int
- > refers to a VAXC fd or a TGV socket, or (3) to decide in the low level
- > routine what a particular int refers to (in Wollongong code, I can use
- > the kludge that fds are sequentially assigned and so are very small ints,
- > whereas sockets are >= 192). What's my best bet?
-
- I've used various combinations of all your listed options. (0) is the
- easiest and works fine -- I just use DEC's include files and the socket
- library routines provided with the C RTL.
-
- /Kevin Carosso
- Innosoft
-
-