Proposal: ByteString based datagram communication (Ticket #1238 )

[Robert Marlow]

The old API is considered only useful for "testing" anyway, since it
uses hGetContents and consequently can cause open socket leaks. This
patch is intended to make those functions more useful and closer to what
a network programmer might expect from a functions named sendTo /
recvFrom.

How do you think the patch should be broken up and why?

On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 23:02 -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> Robert Marlow wrote:
> > There doesn't seem to be any further concerns about this patch and it
> > has been tested against ia32 linux ghc and hugs. Can this patch now be
> > accepted or can somebody test it against windows?
> 
> For a single patch, it does rather a lot of different things.  It should 
> at least be split into four different patches.
> 
> Also, am I not mistaken, or does it not change the existing API?
> 
> -sendTo,         -- :: HostName -> PortID -> String -> IO ()
> +sendTo,         -- :: HostName -> PortID -> B.ByteString -> IO Socket
> +sendTo_,        -- :: HostName -> PortID -> B.ByteString -> IO ()
> 
> 	<b
> 
-- 
Robert Marlow
MITS Co-operative Limited
http://www.mits.coop/