Re: [colorforth] network stack

[Oninoshiko <oninoshiko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"A Pax, a pax, a pax upon thee"

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Mark Slicker wrote:

> This is pretty much a linear succession of protocols. You can still check
> for other protocols before -got, my receive looks like:
> 
> receive +ethernet -arp +ip +udp -dns -dhcp -got
> 
> As I type this, I notice these are missnamed acording to Chuck's
> convention, -dns -dhcp will return if the udp port does not match and let
> the next protocol try, they don't drop packets.
> 
> For tcp you need a branch since udp and tcp are siblings both with child
> protocols. How it should be done exactly I don't know since I have not yet
> attempted tcp.

you have basicly confermed my interpritation, thank you. rather then use a 
linaer sussesion of protocols, why dont we have thsi be a listing of 
sibling protocols? then within the call have this listing of its children. 
are there any drawbacks to this method that i sould know about (other then 
having to rewrite some of the exsisting code)?

Oninoshiko


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com