[Mono-list] code stuff

[Andrew Sutton]

On Friday 20 July 2001 14:12, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Andrew,
>
>    Are you planning on implementing all the classes that you sent me?
> Because many of them look like skeletons.  Should I register that you
> will be implementing all of them?


i'll implement the ones that i've started. that's pretty much the core socket 
stuff. i'm probably going to have to step on some of the System.Net code (and 
at least one place in the System code - private att should be protected 
maybe).

all that other tcp/ip stuff doesn't really belong there anyway. it should be 
in a tcp/ip namespace. in my opinion.

be warned though, i don't have any way to test the stuff i'm writing right 
now :) at least not until the compilers good to go.

> So in the long run, we have a number of options:
>
>        * The "corlib.dll" would not be able to be cross platform, and
>         that we might end up having this be compiled/distributed for
>         each system.
>
>        * We define our own constants, and we have a per-platform
>           "constant mapper" built into the runtime (jit/interpreter).


another way to handle this would be to write a small portability library used 
by the dll that helps resolve system dependent issues. then the system stuff 
can call into the portability layer.

for example, part of the portability layer could be the mapping of 
System.Net.Sockets.AddressFamily values to system values.

actually, thats sort of an interesting way to solve complicated portability 
issues. define a set of shared libraries specifically designed to overcome 
portability issues. just distribute them with the jit. of course, this should 
only be used as a last resort.

andy