Craig Latta wrote:

> Hi--
> 
>>Another thing I don't like is using NetStreams with TCP sockets in
>>the Listen state. Since a socket in Listen state can't bahave like a
>>Stream, I think we should use completly different objects for that
>>(ConnectionQueue, for instance, or just the TCPSocket alone).
>>
> 
> 	In design, I considered services related to accepting connections as
> simply adjunct to sockets' main purpose (transferring data over
> established connections), and not worth complicating the system
> organization by implementing access to them outside the NetStream
> hierarchy. In particular, I wanted to group all the socket-creation
> messages that developers use in one place, so that people would
> associate that place with the creation of sockety things of all sorts. I
> like to minimize the number of classes people have to keep in mind to
> use a particular part of the system, as long as it doesn't contort the
> implementation unreasonably. I think this case works.
>


Sure, keeping the number of classes low is sometimes a good thing. And 
in this case I think it does make sense.


> -	Ah, there are several subclasses here for using different sorts of
> transport (the "transport" concept is further described in the Stream
> class comment), and one of them (SocketStream) has a class comment which
> makes it seem appropriate to what I want to do.
> 
> 	Having found SocketStream, the developer may then read about the
> vagaries of TCP, UDP, listening, etc., from the methods and class
> comments. (Note: I think the public release of Flow still has a single
> NetStream class, whereas the current unreleased version has a
> sub-hierarchy, roughly corresponding to transports. Also note that
> netjam.org's website is temporarily down, pending my escape from ISP
> hell.)
>


Yes, the version of Flow I have has only a single NetStream class. I 
kind of liked that (having a single NetStream class and several 
NetResources). I'd like to see the new version. I think netjam.org has 
been down for quite a while. Can you send me the change sets to 
mailto:luciano at corest.com ?


> 	What problem does the current organization present for you in use? Do
> you mistakenly send inappropriate messages to listeners?
>


Not really. I just thought it was a little strange.

Cheers,

Luciano.-


--- for a personal reply use: Luciano Notarfrancesco <luciano at corest.com>