W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: [touch@isi.edu: draft may be of interest]

From: Jon Crowcroft <J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 16:53:07 +0100
To: hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu
Cc: touch@isi.edu, http-wg-request <http-wg-request%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <1925.834940282@cs.ucl.ac.uk>


 >What I would like to hear is how hard it is to modify Windows NT to 
 >add in a new protocol stack. 

havnt done NT, but we have done 95 and 3 by writing new DLLs that
match the export (actually we have a sight problem with this in that we 
can;t get pre-compiled apps YET to call our dll rather than the old one due to
some mismatch, but we will sort that with some help from MSDL
hopefully real soon)

also note a lot of recenter unices support a simuialr approach to
dyanmic linking of kernels, so you _oight to be able to re-plumb the
streams code to put in T/TCP, or joe's stuff, or evcen push an
HTTP down there....

also, winsock II has some hooks to help tweak things (though i
actually think they are really pure resource control things, and that
re-placing dll's is more fruitful...) - 

so when someone tells us why we can link our apps with our DLL< and
with the styand DLL, but not get an existing app to call our DLL (even
when we put it in the right place/path, and it has same set of
fuctions, same order, same params), then the answer will be "its easy" :-)

til then, i have to regard MS operating systems as a little behind
more recent Unixes (e.g. solaris) where we have had some success in
loading new protocol stacks already....
[no criticism, except of lack of open culturein doing internet stuff
with MS's OS's yet ...:-)

cheers


 jon
Received on Sunday, 16 June 1996 15:32:48 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:04 EDT