lwip-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lwip-users] Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP

From: Chris Borrelli
Subject: [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:27:53 -0000 
--------------060306000005020407020704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It would be nice if we could stay with the lwIP code base for Gigabit 
applications, but if it is radically different, then maybe a different 
project is needed...

Any interest in a uCOS/lwIP+ project?

 -Chris

Kieran Mansley wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Paul Sheer wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>all of everyone changing lwIP to suit their own purposes.  For example,
>>>I've made many changes to my own branch of lwIP to make it more
>>>suitable for gigabit speed networking, but these changes would not
>>>be suitable for the main tree as it would be detrimental for many
>>>others.
>>>      
>>>
>>Myself I am interested in these Gigabit modifications, but
>>now I can't easily see them because they are not included!
>>    
>>
>
>If that's the case then maybe there should be a fork to allow people to
>diverge towards gigabit networking, but I wouldn't want to do that at the
>expense of people using small low memory systems, which is what lwIP is
>intended for.
>
>  
>
>>This is what #ifdef's are for. Most generic packages have many
>>many build options, and I would like to see LwIP become just
>>as flexible.
>>    
>>
>
>This is exactly what I'm afraid of.  #ifdefs are great for small changes,
>the odd line or two of code that needs to be different, but when you start
>using them to switch between radically different code structures it can
>get very messy and hard to maintain.
>
>lwIP is attractive for many people because if its simplicity and clean
>code, and the fact that it's easy to build and debug.  Trying to lever
>support for everyone's system into the one system would probably break
>that.  I'd much rather see it remain a generic stack, and have people add
>their own refinements.
>
>I think this illustrates exactly what I was trying to get at - we
>obviously have a difference of opinion about changes to lwIP.  In cases
>such as this where developers disagree, what happens?
>
>Kieran
>
>[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]
>  
>


--------------060306000005020407020704
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
It would be nice if we could stay with the lwIP code base for Gigabit 
applications,
but if it is radically different, then maybe a different project is 
needed...<br>
<br>
Any interest in a uCOS/lwIP+ project?<br>
<br>
&nbsp;-Chris<br>
<br>
Kieran Mansley wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="address@hidden">
  <pre wrap="">On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Paul Sheer wrote:

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">all of everyone changing lwIP to suit their own purposes.  
For example,
I've made many changes to my own branch of lwIP to make it more
suitable for gigabit speed networking, but these changes would not
be suitable for the main tree as it would be detrimental for many
others.
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">Myself I am interested in these Gigabit modifications, but
now I can't easily see them because they are not included!
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
If that's the case then maybe there should be a fork to allow people to
diverge towards gigabit networking, but I wouldn't want to do that at the
expense of people using small low memory systems, which is what lwIP is
intended for.

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">This is what #ifdef's are for. Most generic packages have many
many build options, and I would like to see LwIP become just
as flexible.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
This is exactly what I'm afraid of.  #ifdefs are great for small changes,
the odd line or two of code that needs to be different, but when you start
using them to switch between radically different code structures it can
get very messy and hard to maintain.

lwIP is attractive for many people because if its simplicity and clean
code, and the fact that it's easy to build and debug.  Trying to lever
support for everyone's system into the one system would probably break
that.  I'd much rather see it remain a generic stack, and have people add
their own refinements.

I think this illustrates exactly what I was trying to get at - we
obviously have a difference of opinion about changes to lwIP.  In cases
such as this where developers disagree, what happens?

Kieran

[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]
  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------060306000005020407020704--

[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]
reply via email to
[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]