Hi Hans,

Beside other questions, I agree to move USOCKET development to Git. However my exist knowledge to Git cannot do such migration in short time, I hope you can do this for USOCKET, as you’re a maintainer of USOCKET too. (But please don’t put the Git repository on common-lisp.net servers, I think it’s not quite stable. I prefer SourceForge or Github.  Once the new Git repository is set up, we’ll do rest of the work on Git instead of SVN.

I’m very sorry that I was not active in the past year. One reason is that I’m keep working for Gensym Corporation to maintain & develop the next version of their flagship Lisp-based product, Gensym G2, and the work is extremely busy. The other reason is that I’m trying to go back to college again for further study, and now I’m in Italy, will shortly be a student of University of Bologna.

For the IPv6 plan, pushing SBCL & CCL community to add the feature is easier for USOCKET and better for future maintenance. On the other side, providing fully loadable IPv6 patches by ourself is hard but provided the possibility to let users on old SBCL/CCL versions directly benefit from IPv6.   I’m not sure which approach is the best, but fortunately these approaches are not conflict with each other (so, choosing which plans totally depends on the progress of each).  For example, one major commercial CL platform is going to support UDP natively, thus all the UDP loadable patches provided by USOCKET will be obsoleted, but these code will not be removed as they still provide the possibility for users on old versions of that platform to use UDP. (upgrading a commercial platform needs money, upgrading a free platform needs courage, that’s at the same level from my view).

Regards,

Chun Tian (binghe)

Il giorno 17/set/2014, alle ore 10:08, Hans Hübner <hans.huebner@gmail.com> ha scritto:

I did some more research to find that nothing has moved in terms of implementation support for IPv6 (in SBCL and CCL, fwiw).  I think this should change, in particular as the required changes to sb-bsd-sockets and l1-sockets.lisp are rather small, and it is very embarrassing that the two most popular open source CL implementations still ignore IPv6.

I'm going to come up with a more complete IPv6 update to sb-bsd-sockets in the next few days and try to get it merged into SBCL.

From looking at http://sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/mailman/sbcl-devel/thread/4E820C9E-33E2-43B2-BA2F-566F812AB154@gmail.com/, I see that there has been some work on USOCKET to support IPv6.  Has that gone anywhere yet?

Finally, would you consider moving USOCKET development to git?  GitHub makes collaboration so much easier.

Cheers,
Hans

2014-09-17 9:36 GMT+02:00 Hans Hübner <hans.huebner@gmail.com>:
Hi Chun,

this discussion thread has kind of ended in nothing and I'm now returning to find out how IPv6 support can be added to Hunchentoot and Drakma.  A few options are on the table:

- Make USOCKET support IPv6
- Create IOLib backend for USOCKET
- Add Implementation specific code to Drakma and Hunchentoot

I have given up on the IOLib idea, basically because it uses a shared library that cannot be built using quicklisp.

What is the status of IPv6 support in USOCKET?  Is there any hope to see it happen?

Thanks,
Hans

2013-06-25 15:12 GMT+02:00 Ryan Davis <ryan@acceleration.net>:
We have a similar problem with CLSQL; one API with multiple database backends. CLSQL's backend choice is a little different; the backend choice is a user-facing decision whereas usocket choosing iolib is an internal matter, but I thought I'd offer our approach.

We solve it in two ways:
  • an ASD files for each backend: clsql-mysql, clsql-sqlite3, etc. (akin to the proposed usocket-iolib)
  • a generic ASD file that tries to dynamically load more backends on request; if we try to connect to a :sqlite3 database, the connect function checks to see if clsql-sqlite3 is loaded, and if not, issues the load on the spot - see https://github.com/UnwashedMeme/clsql/blob/master/sql/database.lisp#L99
So library users can specify which backend they want via a direct dependency via ASDF, or let the environment take care of it. It's not the cleanest solution in the world and has some restrictions, but it's worked pretty well.

Thanks,

Ryan Davis
Director of Programming, Acceleration.net
2837 NW 41st Street, Unit 320
Gainesville, FL 32606
352-335-6500 x124
http://www.acceleration.net
On 06/24/2013 06:27 AM, Chun Tian (binghe) wrote:
Hi Anton

On 24/giu/2013, at 18:10, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> wrote:



        

          
To solve all related issue, I'm going to do some runtime detection on *features*: if last compile time usocket was compiled with or without :usocket-iolib but current load time the feature set is different, ASDF should re-compile all usocket source files instead, not just load previous FASLs.  (I'm not sure if ASDF have already provided such a feature, so let me also copy this mail to Faré, the ASDF maintainer)

I don't like the idea of creating a whole new ASDF system like "usocket-iolib", because that will require other packages to change their system definitions to benefit from this new work.  And the most important thing, whether to depend on IOlib is totally an internal fair of usocket: it doesn't change the programming interface at all.  And the choice on if user want to use native network support of IOlib-based network support on their current platforms, ONLY depends on if they like to load additional DLLs (by CFFI).   I always want usocket  to depend on nothing, so that we can easily patch those 24x7 lisp servers to upgrade the networking support smoothly.


        

        
I agree that the usocket clients (application and other libraries) should work via the API and do not depend on particular implementation.
What I suggest is to make the implementation switchable at runtime, instead of compile time. I think the solution will be simpler and more flexible solution.
Up the the level that we can have at the same time in the same lisp image both IOlib sockets and sockets based on the API provided by the Lisp implementation.


      

      
It's possible to implement the runtime switches, and I admit this is a good idea when IOlib is being depended by usocket.   Now I think it's also possible to provide a standalone, new ASDF system "usocket-iolib", which *explicitly* make sure IOlib is used as backend.  But all my previous ideas should still work, there's no conflicts I can see.



      

        
Best regards,
- Anton