Subject: Re: getaddrinfo() and PF_LOCAL
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/02/2001 10:18:24
>>> I'm going to be mildly heretical here...why does AF_LOCAL still have
>>> anything to do with the filesystem? [...]
>>> Am I being stupid somehow, or is there really no reason beyond
>>> backward compatability?
>> I don't think I'd call it stupid, I can see your point.
>Actually, since I wrote that, one thing came to mind: permissions. I'm
>not sure whether the permission bits on a socket have any semantics,
>but those on the directories leading up to it definitely do.
i think that's *exactly* what they had in mind. as for the bits on
the socket itself, i think that traditionally they didn't matter, but
they do now.
>Whether there is reason enough to preserve the filesystem semantics is
>debatable. (Vide infra, too.)
having it in the filesystem is not that much of a problem, and you get
arbitrary permissions control for free? sounds good to me.
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."