Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:11:26 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: n@nectar.com Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: getaddrinfo and the UNIX domain Message-ID: <y7vg0lfpqz5.wl@condor.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> In-Reply-To: In your message of "Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:05:29 -0600" <20001029100529.B26020@spawn.nectar.com> References: <20001028163909.A77420@hamlet.nectar.com> <y7vvgucpcp4.wl@condor.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> <20001029100529.B26020@spawn.nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:05:29 -0600,
>>>>> "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> said:
>> By the way, in my understanding, if getaddrinfo supported PF_UNIX, it
>> would take the filename as its 1st argument:
>>
>> getaddrinfo("/tmp/some-socket", NULL, &hints, &res);
> In the absence of any standard, I think either way could be argued.
> For example, as a counter argument,
> The address parameter specifies a machine or network interface,
> and in the local domain one there is only one possible machine.
> Therefore, the address parameter should be NULL, and the service
> parameter specifies the `port' or `SAP'.
I admit you could say that (thus I added "in my understanding" in my
previous message). Anyway, the problem is that there's no standard
about combination of PF_UNIX and getaddrinfo(), as itojun pointed out.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7vg0lfpqz5.wl>