On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, 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.
>
> The concept of "defaults" for socket options for a process already
> effectively exists -- it's just that they're currently the same for all
> processes all of the time.  All I'm suggesting is a way to change them,
> and only for the scope of the current process and only for sockets yet
> to be created.
>
> From a user's perspective it always makes much more sense to be able to
> change the defaults than it does to add yet another magic way to do
> something which there's already a very well established way of doing.

 	It means any library that craetes a socket, including third
 	party libraries, needs to know about this feature and
 	specifically code around it.

-- 
 		David/absolute       -- www.NetBSD.org: No hype required --