Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:      John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
To:        jkh@zippy.cdrom.com
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: libalias or libnat. Vote ? 
Message-ID:  <199908242156.OAA78568@vashon.polstra.com>
In-Reply-To: <3843.935363694@localhost>
References:  <3843.935363694@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <3843.935363694@localhost>,
Jordan K. Hubbard <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> wrote:
> 
> I've been on both sides of this issue, to be sure, but I have to say
> that looking at it now, I can't see any reason to change the actual
> name of the library right now unless we're also going to go whole-hog
> and change the API functions to PacketNATFoo() and such, something
> that would only really make sense (or be worth the effort, anyway) if
> we had a bunch of improvements to bring in at the same time, e.g. a
> significant rearchitecting effort.
> 
> If we don't have anything like that planned, then simply changing the
> user visible flags and man pages to strongly encourage use of -nat
> style options rather than the deprecated -alias ones will probably
> be enough of a step in the right direction for now.

I agree. Users don't know or care about the name of the library.
Programmers are used to dealing with quirks like having NAT
implemented in a library named libalias.

John
-- 
  John Polstra                                               jdp@polstra.com
  John D. Polstra & Co., Inc.                        Seattle, Washington USA
  "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."        -- Nora Ephron


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908242156.OAA78568>