Subject: Re: c-ares API vs c-ares source code provided functions (Win32 recommended reading)

Re: c-ares API vs c-ares source code provided functions (Win32 recommended reading)

From: Phil Blundell <pb_at_reciva.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:18:04 +0000

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.

p.
Received on 2009-11-03