On 07/09/2020 05:31, Michael Brutman wrote:
"Exotic" is a strange word ...
Let me help. Quick web search suggests such definition: "Intriguingly unusual or different"
WATTCP uses its own configuration file, mTCP uses its own configuration file.
My point exactly. There are users now that configure the mTCP config file and wonder why Wattcp isn't catching it.
After WATTCP came to my attentioned I looked at it and determined that I would continue to do my own thing.
Nothing wrong with that - on the contrary: the more the merrier! But some sort of compatibility layer would be most welcome. If not at the (ABI) library level, then at least sharing the same configuration file and directives (or subset/superset of).
One good reason not to share the configuration file that I can think of from the top of my head would be if mTCP used a leaner (binary) configuration format to avoid implementing a full blown text parser, hence saving a little bit on memory. But IIRC, mTCP's configuration file is ini-style, just like what Wattcp/Watt-32 use. Are there other reasons I missed?
You did write picoSNTP even though SNTP clients already exist, right? Isn't this another example of a wheel being reinvented?
picoSNTP is (was) part of a larger proof of concept that aimed to show "something" working in DOS with a hacked version of the picoTCP. Not really a production-ready replacement for any existing TCP/IP stack. I didn't pursue this as I lost interest in the mean time, but I did have plans to implement a wattcp configuration generator within my 'ipcfg' picoTCP configuration tool (possibly extended further to generate mTCP configurations as well, in the spirit of "one tool to rule them all").
Mateusz _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
