On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:24:24PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 02:38:54 -0400 (EDT), der Mouse wrote:
> Subject: Re: Proposal: socketfrom()
> > 
> > I don't like Greg Woods's idea of having process-default socket
> > options, because I much prefer to have some way to name this collection
> > of options, rather than having just one set of default options for a
> > whole process.
> 
> I'm not so sure why having default "options" for a process is such a bad
> thing.
> 
> You can change the defaults at any time again and then still create new
> sockets with the "new" defaults.

It sounded like Thor's application creates new sockets often enough that
it suffer from not having defaults. So, per-process defaults might work
in his case, but it's not hard to imagine a more general solution where
an application creates two different types of sockets often - maybe even
interleaving them - and having to switch the defaults back and forth
every time wouldn't help much.

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like
mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear,
but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live
in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville