headers
Thomas De Contes | 30 Oct 14:13
Favicon

adasockets / GNAT.Sockets

hi :-)

Which is the advantage of adasockets compared to GNAT.Sockets ?

I thought that it was the streams, because GNAT.Sockets would not  
allow to use streams as easily as adasockets,
but it seems that it's wrong (or is it an innovation of ada 2005 ?)

Is there sth else ?

ps :
trashgod <at> GMAIL.COM said me that he tried posting to this list, but  
the message never came back.
Could you look at it, please ?

--

-- 
j'agis contre l'assistanat, je travaille dans une SCOP !

_______________________________________________
AdaSockets mailing list
AdaSockets <at> lists.rfc1149.net
http://lists.rfc1149.net/mailman/listinfo/adasockets
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Samuel Tardieu | 4 Nov 21:15
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: adasockets / GNAT.Sockets

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas De Contes <d.l.tDeContes <at> free.fr> writes:

Thomas> Which is the advantage of adasockets compared to
Thomas> GNAT.Sockets ?

I prefer its interface, which is of a higher level than GNAT.Sockets
one.

Thomas> I thought that it was the streams, because GNAT.Sockets would
Thomas> not allow to use streams as easily as adasockets, but it seems
Thomas> that it's wrong (or is it an innovation of ada 2005 ?)

I doubt Ada2005 has had any influence on a GNAT.* package :)

Thomas> ps : trashgod <at> GMAIL.COM said me that he tried posting to this
Thomas> list, but the message never came back.  Could you look at it,
Thomas> please ?

I have no track of this attempt. Could you be more specific?

  Sam
--

-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam <at> rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

_______________________________________________
AdaSockets mailing list
AdaSockets <at> lists.rfc1149.net
http://lists.rfc1149.net/mailman/listinfo/adasockets
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas De Contes | 5 Nov 18:16
Favicon

Re: adasockets / GNAT.Sockets


Le 4 nov. 07 à 21:15, Samuel Tardieu a écrit :

>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas De Contes <d.l.tDeContes <at> free.fr> writes:
>
> Thomas> Which is the advantage of adasockets compared to
> Thomas> GNAT.Sockets ?
>
> I prefer its interface, which is of a higher level than GNAT.Sockets
> one.

Could you give me some examples, please ?

Looking at PingPong example (in GNAT.Sockets), i don't see anything  
else than Initialize and Finalize,
Is it enough to say that it is higher level ?

>
> Thomas> I thought that it was the streams, because GNAT.Sockets would
> Thomas> not allow to use streams as easily as adasockets, but it seems
> Thomas> that it's wrong (or is it an innovation of ada 2005 ?)
>
> I doubt Ada2005 has had any influence on a GNAT.* package :)

I don't remember if it was in the old versions of GNAT or not

But it may be a GNAT enhancement :-)

--

-- 
j'agis contre l'assistanat, je travaille dans une SCOP !
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Samuel Tardieu | 6 Nov 12:26
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: adasockets / GNAT.Sockets

Thomas> Which is the advantage of adasockets compared to GNAT.Sockets
Thomas> ?

Sam> I prefer its interface, which is of a higher level than
Sam> GNAT.Sockets one.

Thomas> Could you give me some examples, please ?

Thomas> Looking at PingPong example (in GNAT.Sockets), i don't see
Thomas> anything else than Initialize and Finalize, Is it enough to
Thomas> say that it is higher level ?

This is a fair question. When AdaSockets was written, there was no
GNAT.Sockets. Now that GNAT.Sockets has evolved, the useless of
AdaSockets has been diminished.

Note that I started a branch to rebase AdaSockets on GNAT.Sockets so
that we can benefit from its ability to be cross-compiled (constants
packages are generated for many platforms and distributed):

  http://www.rfc1149.net/git/?p=adasockets.git;a=shortlog;h=gnat-sockets

However, there is a long way to be entirely GNAT.Sockets based while
keeping the same interface. I think I may do a last major release on
the 1.x branch (probably 1.9) which will be the same as 1.8.x (same
interface) + cross-compilation capabilities. This branch will then be
maintained but only accumulate bug fixes if needed. I will also
maintain the 1.8.x branch with no dependency over GNAT.Sockets if
there is a need for that.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Samuel Tardieu | 6 Nov 13:42
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: adasockets / GNAT.Sockets

>>>>> "Sam" == Samuel Tardieu <sam <at> rfc1149.net> writes:

Sam> This is a fair question. When AdaSockets was written, there was
Sam> no GNAT.Sockets. Now that GNAT.Sockets has evolved, the useless
Sam> of AdaSockets has been diminished.

s/useless/usefulness/ of course :)

_______________________________________________
AdaSockets mailing list
AdaSockets <at> lists.rfc1149.net
http://lists.rfc1149.net/mailman/listinfo/adasockets
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas De Contes | 16 Nov 13:02
Favicon

Re: adasockets / GNAT.Sockets


Le 6 nov. 07 à 12:26, Samuel Tardieu a écrit :

> Thomas> Which is the advantage of adasockets compared to GNAT.Sockets
> Thomas> ?
>
> Sam> I prefer its interface, which is of a higher level than
> Sam> GNAT.Sockets one.
>
> Thomas> Could you give me some examples, please ?
>
> Thomas> Looking at PingPong example (in GNAT.Sockets), i don't see
> Thomas> anything else than Initialize and Finalize, Is it enough to
> Thomas> say that it is higher level ?
>
> This is a fair question. When AdaSockets was written, there was no
> GNAT.Sockets. Now that GNAT.Sockets has evolved, the useless of
> AdaSockets has been diminished.

ok, i understand :-)

>
> Note that I started a branch to rebase AdaSockets on GNAT.Sockets so
> that we can benefit from its ability to be cross-compiled

> However, there is a long way to be entirely GNAT.Sockets based while
> keeping the same interface. I think I may do a last major release on
> the 1.x branch (probably 1.9) which will be the same as 1.8.x (same
> interface) + cross-compilation capabilities. This branch will then be
> maintained but only accumulate bug fixes if needed.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane