Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/06/01/21:45:25
Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com> wrote:
>Hello.
>Eli Zaretskii wrote:
<Snipped>
>> Sorry, I cannot parse this. Don't you agree that the development
>> environment will become larger? And what's Microsoft got to do with
>> this?
>
>I think we need to define the term "integration" here. AFAICT Eli and me
>think that you mean integration into djdev itself, whereas you are
>thinking about integration between two separate entities: djdev + library.
>The puzzling thing is that the second case is what we have today anyway -
>most of the network libraries do integrate with DJGPP, otherwise how would
>they work?
PMFJI here fellas, but there *are* open-source application packages
out there that also assume networking libraries and headers are
installed and work in the environment in which you are compiling, not
just trn/pine/lynx/etc. porters. I ran into this myself recently with
an open-source FSM (finite state machine) application generator called
libero <http://www.imatix.com>. I, too, got the "ntohl redefined"
error (among others), and thus discovered this problem myself.
May I make the suggestion that networking headers should not even be
present in djdev if there is no library support for them? I believe
it would be cleaner for a developer/porter to see that an include file
is missing rather than getting redefined variables or macros. At
least then the developer knows that (an)other component(s) is/are
needed and can go looking for it/them. Unless, of course, there are
parts of the library that can't live without those headers. Is the
latter currently true?
IMHO, separate libraries (i.e., djdev + library/headers) that
integrate seamlessly with the DJGPP environment are just fine, and I
know folk like Rich Dawe and others are working very hard to make that
a reality. But it really would be finer if the zip-picker asked if
you wanted DOS networking capabilities, and gave you the appropriate
networking zips as well as the basic development zips, and if the
networking zips you downloaded worked just like all of the other fine
ports which with we have been gifted by the DJGPP workers.
For those new to the networking libraries/headers, it would be nice to
see a short FAQ somewhere on what libraries are needed for what
networking application areas (i.e., do I need libnet AND WAT-TCP AND
libsocket, or just two of them, or just one? How do I choose? Are
there incompatibilities? In what order should they be installed?
Etc.)
Of course, it would also be finer if application package developers
didn't incidentally *assume* so much, and allowed for environments
that don't actually support networking. <*Sigh*>
One more IMHO: If that dosppp06.zip file mentioned earlier in this
thread supports a dialup ppp connection under DOS, that makes it
another good candidate for the zip picker. I strongly suspect that
90% of those who might need networking DJGPP support are dial-up
networkers, despite the increasing availability of DSL and cable-modem
alternatives, at least in the USA.
</soapbox-rant>
I, for one, do not have DSL or cable-modem as options, *despite*
living in a *very* large US city. "Wide pipe" marketers don't target
residential neighborhoods because the support costs outweigh the price
point at which they can sell the service, so they go primarily for the
"high-density" areas, leaving low-density residential areas as the
very last to get access.
And wireless alternatives are slower and substantially less reliable
than either DSL or cable-modem.
Bah! Humbug! A pox on all their houses!
</End-soapbox-rant>
----------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT nospam DOT dorsai DOT org OR
pjfarley AT nospam DOT banet DOT net)
- Raw text -