Hi binghe,
the portability layer lives in the package :iolib.usocket and implements
the usocket api. How would you implement and api without emulating
another package's interface? Isn't the api the package's interface? If
the user loads iolib.usocket.asd, what else should he expect instead of
usocket with all functionalities of usocket in it?
iolib.usocket.asd creates an alias system and package so that users
don't have to make any explicit code changes to their own code base.
yes, usocket is brilliant for covering the platforms where cffi and
iolib are not available/desirable.
The problem with the wait-* functions is that they are inherently
non-portable (posix specific) and also assume certain programming model
which is so far incompatible with wide-spread common lisp libraries.
For example, I added a timeout argument to socket-accept so that
hunchentoot can work without assuming posix (on winapi). Going forward,
it might be worth acknowledging different programming models and embrace
them in the usocket api.
Cheers,
Tomas
On 06/24/2013 12:25 PM, Chun Tian (binghe) wrote:
Hi Tomas
I think it's not quite polite to directly emulate another package's interface (and creating other
package's Lisp package), so you shouldn't expect after loading IOlib.usocket, you got a package
"usocket" with all functionalities of usocket in it. However, with a slightly changed
Lisp package name, the whole idea is possible, just like what CFFI tries to emulate UFFI by using
a separated system "cffi-uffi.asd". Any way, this is something not cared by me, because
I'm not the maintainer of IOlib.
What I cared is to make exist usocket users and applications live better
without making any explicit code changes into their own code base. By using
IOlib as a backend, usocket's WAIT-FOR-INPUT function now can directly use
IOlib's strong I/O multiplexing facility and exceed the 512 fd limitation when
using select(). I also care those platforms in which CFFI and IOlib is not
available, so a plain usocket implementation is still needed.
On 24/giu/2013, at 17:56, Tomas Hlavaty <tomas.hlav...@knowledgetools.de> wrote:
Hi binghe,
you are welcome. Both iolib and usocket seem to be under the MIT licence so I
don't see a problem on that front.
However, shouldn't the code be merged into iolib only rather than merging it
into both iolib and usocket? The whole of the iolib winapi port makes it quite
a lot of code. It would be a shame to sacrifice the winapi part especially
when usocket is all about portability API.
Also, as Anton pointed out, I find a separate system better solution than
pushing a feature. After all, usocket is an API. When implemented using iolib,
why would there be a need to use any code from the original usocket? At the
moment we simply asdf-load :iolib.usocket only and all systems depending on
usocket work as desired because the required usocket system and usocket:* stuff
is in place.
Cheers,
Tomas
On 06/24/2013 11:33 AM, Chun Tian (binghe) wrote:
Hi Tomas
Thank you! Then I guess you wouldn't mind if I merge your work into usocket as
the basis of the new IOlib backend? ^_^
--binghe
On 24/giu/2013, at 17:30, Tomas Hlavaty <tomas.hlav...@knowledgetools.de> wrote:
Hi all,
just in case it might be somehow interesting, we've had iolib.usocket system
for quite some time in http://src.knowledgetools.de/tomas/winapi/index.html It
is a simple usocket compatibility layer on top of iolib (also works on Windows
winapi 32 and 64 bit). Not sure what the ipv6 status is though as we don't use
that. IIRC I still need to implement translation of iolib conditions to
usocket ones, but as a precondition for that is unifying conditions from iolib
posix and winapi backends. Otherwise, hunchentoot and cl-postgres work well on
posix and windows using this compatibility layer.
Cheers,
Tomas
On 06/24/2013 11:12 AM, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
Hello.
24.06.2013, 11:22, "Chun Tian (binghe)" <binghe.l...@gmail.com>:
To compile usocket with IOlib, user should push :usocket-iolib into their
*feature* first.
I would like to propose to use some other solution than conditional controlling
compilation with *reatures*.
The disadvantage of the conditional compilation is that when my application
loads the usocket
as a dependency, the application doesn't know how usocket will work, because it
was dediced
when usocket was compiled (possible during load of some other application).
If you give little bit more details about he usocket-iolib functions, I can
propose more concrete solutions.
Very possible the proposal will be a separate ASDF system, usocket-iolib.
Best regards,
- Anton
