[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dev-serveez] Re: [Serveez-discuss] Time to think.

From: Martin Grabmueller
Subject: Re: [dev-serveez] Re: [Serveez-discuss] Time to think.
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:53:15 +0100

> From: stefan <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:18:56 +0100 (CET)
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Martin Grabmueller wrote:

[snip alot of mgrabmue & ela stuff]

> > Documentation is very important, and the features we already have
> > should all be documented. Thus the first point.
> Yes. That is work but easy to fulfill. For I have written the code I will
> document it either.

That would be really nice.

> > Switching to Guile is next, because I am right now making friends with
> > the Guile code and the Guile developers ;) I am willing to assist with
> > this.
> Ok. Will Guile'ers also accept patches for porting code to Win32 ? 

Well, wait a few days and I will have write access to Guile CVS.  8-)

But seriously: I know that the Guile maintainers always want to do
things The Right Way (TM), and not the Easiest Way.  While it is often
nice that they think before starting work, it often delays decisions.
One example: If something was needed to make Guile compile on Win32,
they would rather urge the libtool people to fix libtool than make a
workaround for that particular problem.  I can't promise anything.

>                                                                    I mean
> the native MinGW port. If so I'll send to you what was necessary to make
> the distribution I made at <>.

Can you post a short overview of what was necessary to port Guile?
Maybe I can then tell you more how likely the changes will go into the

[snip raimi bashing]

> > The remaining points are ordered by feeling only, except that ipv6
> > comes last.  I think it's important, too, but difficult since Serveez
> > is based on ipv4 heavily (IIRC).
> What is IIRC ? And: What is the basic thing to do inorder to support IPv6
> ? I have not yet a slight idea what would be necessary...

IIRC == If I recall correctly

To be honest: I don't have a clue about ipv6 except that I know that
the addresses are longer and that multicast support is
improved. (Raimi: doesn't that sound like the ObjectsOS people?)  
My Stevens unfortunately only covers ipv4 :-(

I think that generalizing the address/port configuration would not
hurt w.r.t. ipv6, because at least the code dealing with addresses
will have to change.

Martin Grabmueller              address@hidden  address@hidden on EFnet

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]