From: John P. Looney (valen at domain redbrick.dcu.ie)
Date: Tue 25 May 1999 - 16:51:11 IST
On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 04:18:09PM +0100, Mel mentioned:
> Browsing through kernel-devel I came across someone complaing about
> wannabes slagging off streams "because it wasn't in Linux" without knowing
> the real reason streams aren't in the kernel.
> ummmm. Why aren't streams in the kernel? They seem like a good idea and
> are already in some other Unices like Digital Unix. Is there some inherent
> limitation on streams or are they too much overhead?
They are an OK API, with an OK overhead, with better APIs with smaller
overheads out there. As long ago as four years ago, there was a test
STREAMS implementation done, but it stopped, as less and less people had
any intrest in it, and Linus said "That's not getting into my kernel.
People might use it, and that would be bad". There was some mention of
streams wrappers for sockets, but I dunno where you would find them.
"STREAMS is an alternative to BSD sockets. It's a programming model for
communications within a Unix or other kernel --- between the applications
interfaces and the devices. The Linux kernel core team has soundly reject
suggestions that Linux adopt a STREAMS networking model for its native
internal interfaces and we won't go into their reasoning here. (I'm
inclined to agree with them on this issue in any event.) "
-- Is PIRACY killing the Amiga?" bravely ponders AMIGA FORMAT - well, either that or someone's stopped manufacturing the hardware. -- www.ntk.net (30.04.99)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:14 GMT