[DGD]Network Package Survey

[Gregory D Lewis]

Dear Neil,

> I'm working through the network package to get it up to date,  and also
> more in line with the current DGD distribution.  Currently, there are
> some minor differences in the way vanilla DGD does things, and the way
> the network package does it.  For example, the send_message function is
> slightly different in the network package than it is under DGD.  What I
> am trying to work out is whether or not these little differences are
> used, and if they are used is it because you have to or simply because
> they are there?  ie, Could you use the default behaviour provided by
> DGD?  If you are someone who makes use of these slight differences,
> please drop me a line and tell me about it? 
> 
> Also, if you do use the network package, please drop me a line also. I'm
> trying to work out how widely it is used so a simple one line 'I do'
> mail message would be fine.  Please don't post it on the list.  I'll
> provide a summary later if anyone is interested.

Good to hear its being brought up to date!  I do use it, but its been so long
since I looked at that part of the code (or the code at all ;) I'm not
actually sure that I use the extensions.

> Finally, if you have any ideas for improvements for the package please
> let me know.  Now is the time to speak as I'm doing quite a lot to it to
> clean it up a bit.

Well, I think that, in keeping with DGD's minimalist approach it would be
good to see only "binary" ports, with the telnet implementation being done
in LPC (so that one could do ones own suboption negotiation, etc.).  That
is of course IMO only :).

-- 
Greg Lewis                              Applied Maths Department
Email : glewis at maths.adelaide.edu.au    University of Adelaide
--
Washington [D.C.] is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm.
		-- John F. Kennedy

List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd