Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <3E904B5A.9030303@attglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 11:44:26 -0400
From: Jeff Trawick <trawick@attglobal.net>
Reply-To: trawick@attglobal.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] the beginnings of multicast support]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

oops, sent to wrong place

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PATCH] the beginnings of multicast support
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 11:43:57 -0400
From: Jeff Trawick <trawick@attglobal.net>
Reply-To: trawick@attglobal.net
To: Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net>
References: <62DCF9CE-6845-11D7-BE59-000393CE23F4@electricjellyfish.net>

Garrett Rooney wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, April 6, 2003, at 11:28 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> 
>> If APR had support for extended socket options (i.e., anything other 
>> than single-integer option data, would you have still chosen to create 
>> separate functions or would you have chosen to use socket options for 
>> multicast, as is done with existing socket interfaces?
>>
> i'd be willing to consider an extended socket options interface for this 
> kind of stuff, since that would be quite natural for a unix programmer 
> coming to apr (that is how all this stuff is done in unix land after 
> all), but i'm curious how it would feel for a win32 (or netware or os/2 
> or whatever) coder.  how is multicast support usually done on other 
> platforms?

FWIW, Win32 uses socket options (at least with the BSD socket API).