Hi, Erik
Very good, and it's my pleasure to have same thoughts with you:)
By the way, I should publish some news:
For the local binding patch, I've get contacted with the CMUCL
maintainer (Raymond Toy), and we were still talking about the local-
bind-patch on CMUCL mailing list. I think it's possible to merge my
CMUCL patch.
For the UDP patch [1,2] (which the first reason I go into your life),
Now I have a portable UDP server code. It's quite easy to wrote using
UDP local-binding, wait-for-input, and socket-receive/socket-send. I
don't know when you'll have time to look it and merge it, but I can
wait:)
--binghe
[1]
https://cl-net-snmp.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/cl-net-snmp/usocket-udp/trunk
[2] http://www.cliki.net/usocket-udp
在 2008-7-23，下午9:06， Erik Huelsmann 写道：
I think one of the design idea of usocket is just not use CFFI, and
any
non-lisp code. IOlib is another approach of Lisp networking, it has
some C
wrapper code to be used with CFFI.
Yes, basically I agree.
Use select() or pool() will cause non_OS-portable code and other
difficulties. I suggest not use them directly... usocket should
keep it
simple, and shouldn't depends on CFFI, or any other ASDF package.
And here, I agree too. However, some people have suggested that
usocket could incorporate an alternative backend which is built
'closer to the OS', for example using CFFI.
Even though I will not be building such a backend myself, I can
definitely see why anyone would want to create it. And as such, when a
maintainer pops up for the task, I'll happily integrate the
contribution (and sustained maintenance!) into the project.
I hope that we may see a contribution like this some time in the
future (ie a contribution specifically targetted at performance).
Bye,
Erik.
_______________________________________________
usocket-devel mailing list
usocket-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usocket-devel
