10 Oct
2006
10 Oct
'06
12:25 p.m.
Juha Heinanen wrote:
AFAIK, the unixsock syntax is very similar to the FIFO one, so it might
be affected by the transition to MI in the same way as FIFO and loose
some backward compatibility.
As the number of affected function is really small, my suggestion is to
have a small unixsock/fifo proxy to translate from old version to new
one (in case if we do not find a nicer way to ensure compat with serweb
and sems).
regards,
bogdan
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
this is also my opinion - does anybody else have another one?
2) for how long should we keep in parallel the
two FIFO / UNIXSOCK
implementations before dropping the old ones? I am a fan of a fast
transition I would drop the old impls as soon as the new one offer the
same functioanlity - this will accelerate the testing and migration
process.
since 1.1.2 will bring quite a lot of changes anyway, perhaps we could
drop the old ones immediately. we need to bite the bullet at some time
anyway.
So the
questions are - when to drop the old impls and how to deal with
backward compatibilities (as MI will not be 100% compat with SEMS for
example)
since sems compatibility is very important and since we cannot change
sems's socket interface, we have to provide backwards compatibility to
it via tm module. i can be limited to unix socket only.