Hi Dan, > By 'convoluted' I meant that the coding style is > not as clean ( in my opinion ) as it could be, and there are a lot of > generalizations that I don't need as I am targeting a specific machine. Could you provide some examples? > I am familiar with event driven programming, and you certainly are > correct that this is the basic architecture that must be used. But uIP > is not the perfect solution for all small TCP needs. I personally consider TCP (in contrast to USP) already quite big. So "small TCP needs" is something I don't understand well. In what aspect can a TCP need be small? > Contiki is a fine system, but has a huge amount of overhead if all you > want to do is write a TCP driver. By the time Contiki finishes loading > on an Atari, there is very little application space left. Contiki allows for an interactive web browser, a web server, an interactive SMTP client, an IRC client, a wget program, an interactive Twitter client on the Atari. So I'd say that "little" needs to be seen quite relative. > My goal is to write a small, machine-specific driver for supporting > TCP-IP on the Atari. If it's been done already, well then so be it, > after I'm done we'll have another, and extra options never hurt. My whole argumention was that a driver-like architecture in general doesn't fit the idea of TCP/IP on small devices... Regards, Oliver ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Mon Jan 3 15:40:15 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2011-01-03 15:40:18 CET