[DGD] API requirements for networking extensions

[bart at wotf.org]

>From my point of view:

open_port() from the current network extensions should be extended to support
listening on specific addresses (ipv4 and ipv6). Additionally it should be
changes to use the listen/accept functionality from 'base' instead of adding
its own (it may need some wrapper functions for this).

UDP, use current 'base' implementation instead of the one from the network
extensions.

Outbound TCP: use 'base' implementation instead of the one from the network
extensions.

Functionally, that covers everything except for initiating outbound UDP
traffic, and should share as much code as possible with the 'base' DGD
implementation.

I think it is important to extend open_port() such that it remains backward
compatible with the current version, this could be done by making its port
argument 'MIXED' and it accept either a string like "address:port" or an int
(just the port number). It should also support "*:port"

This will break backward compatibility for outbound connections (minor, the
optional protocol argument won't be available anymore, and errors will cause a
call to unconnected() instead of receive_error(). The proper code for this
should already be in most LPC codebases for DGD). It will also break UDP
connectivity but I don't see how the current network extensions udp
implementation can be revamped to use the new 'base' UDP implementation.

A note about open_port(), currently it can be used to open a random high port,
this functionality is required for supporting protocols like passive FTP
(example, there are more, and the argument of ftp being outdated does not apply).

As open_port() is more or less critical for being ale to migrate to a new
version, I believe it should be backward compatible from the LPC point of
view. I don't think this is as important for outbound connectivity and UDP.

Beyond that, things will change anyway, good moment for cleaning things up
where possible.

Bart.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:48:53 +0200, Felix A. Croes wrote
> Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > What requirements, if any, would their be for a new version of the
> > networking extensions?
> 
> The main requirment is that it shares more code with the vanilla version.
> 
> For example: the network extensions's "connect" function could not be
> executed from within atomic code; the vanilla version could.  Another
> example: the network extensions had no IPv6 support.
> 
> Regards,
> Felix Croes
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd


--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
http://www.om-d.org/