[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support.
From: |
Al Petrofsky |
Subject: |
Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support. |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:50:12 -0800 |
It's always been a bit confusing that emacs uses the term process for
sockets that have no associated process. That confusion will get a
little worse now that emacs processes will include server and datagram
sockets, which don't even share processes' stream-like nature.
I'm not saying we should rename everything now to fix this, but I
think it would help if the start of the "make-network-process" doc
string immediately disclaimed any relationship to a unix process.
> :host HOST -- HOST is name of the host to connect to, or its IP
> address. If specified for a server process, only clients on that host
> may connect. The symbol `local' specifies the local host.
Don't you mean something like "If specified for a server process, it
must be a valid name or address for the local host, and only clients
connecting to that address will get through"?
> :local ADDRESS -- ADDRESS is the local address used for the
> connection. This parameter is ignored when opening a client process.
> When specified for a server process, the HOST and SERVICE are ignored.
>
> :remote ADDRESS -- ADDRESS is the remote partner's address for the
> connection. This parameter is ignored when opening a server process.
> When specified for a client process, the HOST and SERVICE are ignored.
These seemed pointless until I read the process-contact doc, and the
NEWS. (The format of the address wasn't documented in either
function's doc string.) I don't think it's a good idea to add two
more arguments to make-network-process just so that process-contact is
easier to document. Is there some other point?
-al
- Re: Non-blocking open-network-stream, (continued)
- Re: Non-blocking open-network-stream, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/01
- New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/06
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Alex Schroeder, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Alex Schroeder, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Richard Stallman, 2002/03/08
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/13
- Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/13
- Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support.,
Al Petrofsky <=
- Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/14
- Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Richard Stallman, 2002/03/14
- Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/14
- I have installed the patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/17
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Helmut Eller, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Helmut Eller, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Helmut Eller, 2002/03/08
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/08