Re: RFFR

Exactly. We're not changing the interface. We can add to it, but I want 
to maintain backwards compatibility.

On Jan 22, 2004, at 9:13 AM, Aaron Turner wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:01:33AM +0100, Frédéric Raynal wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:54:37AM -0500, Kathleen Poulsen wrote:
>>>
>>> 1 file descriptor per interface rather than per context (i think
>>> this is underway).
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Note that it will very certainly break the current API :-(
>
> Breaking the API is bad.  People still haven't recovered (ie: ported 
> all
> the code) from the last API.  I can't speak for anyone other then
> myself, but I can say that I will have to seriously consider switching
> to something other then libnet if the API breaks and there is no simple
> means for the current and new API's to co-exist on the same box.  I 
> just
> can't keep expecting my users to keep jumping through hoops to compile
> my code like that.
>
> -- 
> Aaron Turner <aturner at pobox.com|synfin.net>  http://synfin.net/
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
> All emails are PGP signed; a lack of a signature indicates a forgery.
>
--
Mike Schiffman, CISSP
http://www.packetfactory.net/schiffman
Doveryay No Proveryay