Message-ID:	<75D022D8BFAED2119B08009027303F582E15@mail>
From:	HANRIGOU Philippe <HANRIGOU AT cgste DOT mq>
To:	"'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	"'starone AT calvanet DOT calvacom DOT fr'" <starone AT calvanet DOT calvacom DOT fr>,
	"'djgpp AT delorie DOT com'" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Inetutils
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:40:10 -0400
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, HANRIGOU Philippe wrote:

>> I don't know  if the server part can be easily ported to DOS as it
>> make intensive use of fork/exec paradigm.
> What programs does it fork?
I haven't looked at server's code yet. But usually, in UNIX world, I think a
classic TCP/IP server listen to a socket and forks as soon as it accepts
a new connection. This way it can simply handle multiple concurrent
connections.

>Also, does your port work on plain DOS, or on Windows/Winsock only?
As I've based my port on libsocket it works only with Windows/Winsock. :-((
I choosed libsocket because it provided a BSD like socket interface
(That really ease the port). In DJGPP FAQ they talk about WATTCP
and a few other packages for networking under plain DOS. But they
do not seem to provide a socket interface, do they?

>If the latter, you could use something like ``system("start /min foo")''
>as a replacement for fork/exec.
Yes, its a good idea. I'll do that if I port the servers one day.
Nevertheless,
I've got enough work with the clients by now!

>If the former, what do you use as TCP/IP layer for the ported package?
What kind of layer could I use (that would not make porting work too
difficult)?

Thank you for your advice,
Best regards,
Philippe.

- Raw text -