[En-Nut-Discussion] NutTcpAccept() timeout

[Brett Abbott]

Hi

It will be a useful change, regardless of the option chosen.  I vote for 
Harald's choice as writing the code is only part of the deal - 
maintainability and supportability are very high on the agenda otherwise 
we will end up with unsupportable spaggetti.

Thanks
Brett

Harald Kipp wrote:
> At 11:19 21.07.2006 +1000, you wrote:
>> Henrik Maier wrote:
>> ...Snip ...
>>>
>>> So I opt for Brett's case #1.
>>
>> Likewise from me, minimal damage to existing codebase, required 
>> functionality met, transparent if timeout not set.
>
> That's my view too.
>
> I really hate version incompatibilities, but in long term we
> may otherwise suffer from a large number of overriding API
> calls, similar to what we already have with NutNetConfig...
> and all the derived calls and subcalls.
>
> Last not least, I'm really spending some amount of time on
> API documentation. That job won't become easier with a
> number of new APIs, option flags and structure fields.
>
> Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
> En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
> http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo.cgi/en-nut-discussion
>
>

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Abbott, Managing Director, Digital Telemetry Limited
Email: Brett.Abbott at digital-telemetry.com
PO Box 24 036 Manners Street, Wellington, New Zealand
Phone +64 (4) 5666-860  Mobile +64 (21) 656-144
------------------- Commercial in confidence --------------------