[gpm] socklen_t handling
Enrico Weigelt
weigelt@metux.de
Mon Jun 2 12:56:07 CEST 2008
* Nico Schottelius <nico-gpm@schottelius.org> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger [Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:23:20AM -0400]:
> > is there a reason the usage of socklen_t in gpm is inconsistent ?
>
> "it's all about history..."
As so many things in gpm ;-P
> > if the code
> > base you're building against doesnt supply socklen_t, it's a great big pile
> > imo (this is after all required by POSIX). if we want to support such crappy
> > systems, we should move the socklen_t check into configure and have the
> > source assume it's available.
>
> I think that's a good solution (autoconf/assume it is there/exit
> error if not).
I don't think we even should care at all. IMHO, the (BSD) socket
interface includes socklen_t. So either this interface is completely!
there, or not at all. In longer terms, it makes no sense maintaining
hacks for individual broken systems. *If* someone really comes around
a system which has sockets but no socklen_t, it's simply broken (just
my rude definition ;-P) and he should fix it. And if he can't fix the
system itself, he should use an proper cross-toolchain.
One general note: interfaces are like contracts. Once you signed a
contract (=say that you provide certain interface), you MUST fulfil
that contract or cancel it. Simply breaking an valid contract is
a very very bad thing. In our gilde, this essentially is called
"design by contract" ;-p
cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the gpm
mailing list