Hi Dan, > I don't want to get into a long discussion about what I think of uIP's > coding style and why. It was merely an opinion, and was labeled as such. I didn't ask about your remarks on the uIP coding style. Is asked about the generalizations you see in uIP which you consider unnecessary in your scenario! As I have quite some experience in IP programming there might have been a point where a generalization you consider unnecessary in fact is necessary - so this was ment as an offer to help. On the other hand if there are genralizations in uIP I would learn from you being unnecessary in certain scenarios I could probably make them optional - thus improving uIP. > By 'small TCP needs' I meant 'small computer TCP needs'. I still I don't see what uIP puts into TCP which isn't necessary / beneficial for a cc65 target machine (and which can't already be configured away). > You are obviously an enthusiastic Contiki supporter, and I think that's > great. :-) > As far as your argument about the driver architecture, I understand what > you are saying. That's basically all I wanted to make sure. I personally would love to if IP networking would be suited for a nice small library allowing to easily add some IP functionality to an (existing) application. However my experience tells me that this is not really possible. 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 16:14:53 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2011-01-03 16:14:57 CET