Re: SOCKUTIL vs HTTPAPI question

[Brian@xxxxxxxxxx]

   Scott,
   Thanks for the reply.
   Just to be clear, it's not that we added custom routines to
   SOCKUTILR4.
   It is that we are using the version from SOCKTUT (your Sockets
   Tutorial) and it has additional procedures over the version from
   LIBHTTP.
   If you choose to keep SOCKUTILR4 in LIBHTTP could you make it the same
   version that is in SOCKTUT?   This will help with the update problem
   you mention.
   Brian J. Garland
   Vermont Information Processing, Inc.
   brian@xxxxxxxxxx

   Scott Klement <sk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Sent by: ftpapi-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   09/30/2006 02:01 AM

                             Please respond to
        HTTPAPI and FTPAPI Projects <ftpapi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

                                                                       To

   HTTPAPI and FTPAPI Projects <ftpapi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

                                                                       cc

                                                                  Subject

   Re: SOCKUTIL vs HTTPAPI question

   Hi Brian,
   I strongly recommend that you never put any of your own code in the
   same
   library with HTTPAPI.  I suggest that because it makes it very hard to
   upgrade HTTPAPI.  I frequently create new versions of HTTPAPI for the
   sole
   reason of fixing bugs, and you wouldn't be able to use any of those
   bug
   fixes!  Or new features...  or whatever else.
   The only stuff that should be in the same library with HTTPAPI is the
   stuff that comes with it.  That way, you can delete that library and
   install the new one, and none of your own code will require any
   changes.
   That being the case, there's really no harm in having a separate copy
   of
   SOCKUTILR4 that has your own custom routines.
   Having said that, I don't know of any reason why you couldn't replace
   the
   copy of SOCKUTILR4 in HTTPAPI with the one from the tutorial.  As far
   as I
   know, they're exactly the same (other than the extra utilities, of
   course.)
   Actually, I was considering eliminating SOCKUTILR4 from HTTPAPI,
   putting
   the routines in COMMTCPR4 instead....   but I'm not yet sure that I
   want
   to do that, and I'm a little concerned that it'd break someone's code
   --
   something I don't want to do.
   --
   Scott Klement  http://www.scottklement.com
   On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Brian@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
   > Scott,
   >
   > We previously downloaded your Socket Utilities and used that to put
   > together a communications program.
   >
   > We just downloaded HTTPAPI in order to do some web services stuff.
   >
   > The SOCKUTILR4 in LIBHTTP does not have RDLINE & WRLINE.
   >
   > Because we use these functions and would like to have everything
   coexist
   > in the same library we have a dilemma.
   >
   >
   >
   > Is there any harm in us using the SOCKUTILR4 (and the appropriate
   /COPY
   > members) from the separate socket download and recreating HTTPAPIR4
   over
   > that version?
   >
   > In future releases could you bring them in sync with each other?
   >
   >
   >
   > Brian J. Garland
   > Vermont Information Processing, Inc.
   > brian@xxxxxxxxxx
   >
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   -
   This is the FTPAPI mailing list.  To unsubscribe, please go to:
   http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the FTPAPI mailing list.  To unsubscribe, please go to:
http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------