Re: c-ares API vs c-ares source code provided functions (Win32 recommended reading)
Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 20:36 +0100, Yang Tse wrote:
>> Yes, of course, there's also the option of adding them unconditionally
>> to the c-ares API, probably ares_inet_ntop and ares_inet_pton deserve
>> that 'honor', I'm not so sure the other ones do.
> That sounds like it would lead to c-ares becoming a sort of general
> grab-bag of "handy internet functions". I kind of feel that, if there
> are systems which lack these functions (which are relatively
> well-standardised nowadays: they're part of the IPv6 basic API), they
> ought to be provided in a dedicated compatibility library and not as
> part of c-ares.
Yes, we're reading this list; we don't use any of the mentioned
functions. And I personally agree with Phil Blundell on this topic, this
would lead to c-ares becoming a 'handy internet functions' library.
Received on 2009-11-04