I have very mixed emotion about the current rxsock library. Let me just list some thoughts in no particular order.
- The rxsock library is extremely complicated to use. You have to really know how sockets work in order to use it. There is not a high-level interface to it which is why I wrote rxsock.cls. - I think there might be a big difference between Windows and Linux users of rxsock, but I am not sure I can explain why. It is just a feeling I have. - Sockets are hard, and do not let anyone tell you differently. The rxsock library hides some of that complexity by just not allowing you access to it, like datagrams, udp, etc. You only get access to the TCP protocol from rxsock. - Although IPv4 and IPv6 use mostly the same APIs, there are differences in the data structures that are passed to those APIs. Thus it makes it harder for the users of rxsock to differentiate between IPv4 and IPv6 if the ooRexx function calls stay the same since we hide the data structures from the user. At this point I am leaning towards the creation of a class library for sockets to support IPv4 and IPv6. This would not replace the current rxsock library but would be made available for the ooRexx users to migrate to eventually. I think this could make sockets much easier to program. We could use the rxsock.cls as a starting point to figure out how it should be organized and what methods should be available. David Ashley ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Android apps run on BlackBerry 10 Introducing the new BlackBerry 10.2.1 Runtime for Android apps. Now with support for Jelly Bean, Bluetooth, Mapview and more. Get your Android app in front of a whole new audience. Start now. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=124407151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
