RE: [cc65] cc65 + tcp/ip howto and/or example

Yes, I agree, trying to add 'easily some IP functionality to an existing
program' would be exceedingly difficult. I'm not really targeting
existing programs. All I am really trying to do is to develop a small
library, mostly for my own personal use in games. I am not trying to
compete with Contiki or uIP or any other existing system.

The way I see it, the more avenues of use for our Ethernet cart there
are the more successful it will be. I encourage people to use Contiki,
uIP, or write their own, whichever they prefer. I'm going to open source
my own little library, so maybe it will be a starting point for other
do-it-yourself'ers, or maybe it won't. We just want to get the cart out
and in use.



Dan Winslow
Director of Information Technology, AIM INSTITUTE
1905 Harney Street, Suite 700
Omaha, NE 68102
402-345-5025 x156
dwinslow@aiminstitute.org
www.aiminstitute.org

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cc65@musoftware.de [mailto:owner-cc65@musoftware.de] On
Behalf Of Oliver Schmidt
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 9:15 AM
To: cc65@musoftware.de
Subject: Re: [cc65] cc65 + tcp/ip howto and/or example

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.