From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jan 14 11:14: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25A115763 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:09:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11124 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:09:21 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA84095 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:07:55 +0100 (MET) Received: from alsatian.cslab.vt.edu (alsatian.cslab.vt.edu [198.82.184.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D680615A28; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:52:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from john.baldwin.cx (pineapple.cslab.vt.edu [198.82.184.58]) by alsatian.cslab.vt.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14374; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:52:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200001141852.NAA14374@alsatian.cslab.vt.edu> X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20000113205438.C20217@lucifer.bart.nl> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:52:30 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Yoshinobu Inoue Subject: Re: [Solicite review for KAME 10th patch] Cc: cvs-committers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 13-Jan-00 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: >>And I did it again, >>I added a new function realhostname2() which is protocol >>independent version of realhostname(), in libutil. >> >>If someone think these naming style should be changed, I think >>it is best timing now. Please give me some proposal. >>e.g. >> bindresvport_sa() >> realhostname_sa() > > I really prefer the _sa versions because the naming is less ambiguous > from the 2 appended versions. I also prefer the *_sa names to the *2 names. > I wonder what the others think. Has this been standardised somewhere > already or are we now still in a phase, do what you want and after that > we'll make a IPv6 API standard? I also second this, i.e. if there is a standard API we should be following that, but I suppose that it there was a standard you would already be following it. :) -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.cslab.vt.edu/~jobaldwi/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message