On Sun, 16 May 2010, Jason Godfrey wrote:
John and I have taken different approaches. John took a more
non-invasive approach, keeping the old code in place and adding the
new protocol neutral code in an ifdef. I replaced the existing code
with protocol neutral code. I was planning on using autoconf to detect
if the new name resolutions functions are available, and writing
replacement functions for when they are not.
John also has also gotten farther then I have. (Support for more then
just APRS-IS)
I'm curious which approach Curt and the others think is worth
pursuing. I'm happy with either giving John any help he wants, or
continuing with what I have started. Merging our work shouldn't be too
hard either.
Heck I don't know... Any work you guys do should be applicable to
Xastir-2 or Xastir-TNG or whatever we're going to call it, so it
won't be wasted effort. My opinion is just one out of several
developers... Don't give it too much weight.
We both are trying to come up with a way to handle the forking for
hostname lookup. The problem is trying to pass back what should be a
rather opaque linked list data structure between address spaces. If
anyone has any ideas please let us know. I've had a few ideas, but non
that I am 100% comfortable with.
My comment earlier that the forking was done in order to provide a
timeout should DNS not respond was meant to trigger some thought as
to whether that method made sense for what you guys were doing.
Don't keep the fork if you can come up with another general-purpose
method to provide a timeout capability. We use that method in other
places too.
--
Curt, WE7U. <http://www.eskimo.com/~archer>
APRS: Where it's at! <http://www.xastir.org>
Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math. - unknown
Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates. - WE7U.
The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
_______________________________________________
Xastir-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev
