From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 19 09:42:43 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035F816A41F; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:42:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from mail16.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail16.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.197]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1C843D45; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:42:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c220-239-19-236.belrs4.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.239.19.236]) by mail16.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j8J9gb4S007845 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:42:39 +1000 Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1]) by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j8J9gaSR054941; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:42:36 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from pjeremy@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from pjeremy@localhost) by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id j8J9gZ3j054940; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:42:35 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from pjeremy) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:42:34 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy To: Xin LI Message-ID: <20050919094234.GG40237@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <1127101042.788.30.camel@spirit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1127101042.788.30.camel@spirit> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Combine more operation within one system call: to do it, or not to do it? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:42:43 -0000 On Mon, 2005-Sep-19 11:37:22 +0800, Xin LI wrote: >It seems that Microsoft has recently revised several of their APIs. I think this is a regular occurence as part of their ongoing efforts to minimise backward and forward compatibility. > One example is their ConnectEx(), as found in documentation [1]. Does this represent a measurable improvement in a real-world situation? >Shall we do something similar? Looking at it from the application writer's POV: Implementing a special case for one OS (when that OS also supports the standard mechanism) requires additional effort and there needs to be good justification for expending that effort. Overall, orphan functionality is unlikely to be used. Unless you can convince several other vendors (*BSD, Linux or a commercial vendor) that the same functionality is worth implementing, you're better off not bothering. > Or do we already done something similar? How about sendto(2)? >http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/winsock/winsock/connectex_2.asp This doesn't work with lynx and I don't have my mozilla running. -- Peter Jeremy