<HEAD><TITLE>discuss@charon: [261] in "Coldmud discussion meeting"</TITLE>
<H1>[261] in Coldmud discussion meeting</H1></HEAD>
<A HREF="/"><IMG SRC="/i-d.gif" ALT="root"></A>
<A HREF="?261"><IMG SRC="/i-back.gif" ALT="meeting"></A>
<A HREF="/help.html"><IMG SRC="/i-help.gif" ALT="help"></A>
<A HREF="1"><IMG SRC="/i-first.gif" ALT="first"></A>
<IMG SRC="/n-fref.gif" ALT="">
<IMG SRC="/n-pref.gif" ALT="">
<A HREF="260"><IMG SRC="/i-prev.gif" ALT="previous"></A>
<A HREF="262"><IMG SRC="/i-next.gif" ALT="next"></A>
<IMG SRC="/n-nref.gif" ALT="">
<IMG SRC="/n-lref.gif" ALT="">
<A HREF="1641"><IMG SRC="/i-last.gif" ALT="last"></A>
<HR><H2>why to use multiple ports at all</H2>
<H3>daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thu May 19 09:14:21 1994
)</H3>
<PRE>
From: deforest@netcom.com (Robert de Forest)
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 06:07:03 -0700 (PDT)

Reason to use my suggestion: lazyness.

If you have a different port for connections, different clients, cross-db
 io, serives like rwho, etc, it means having a different object recieve the
 connect for each service which is much easier, programming-wise, than
 designing and coding a single-port solution. The single port solution
 would require negotiation and chparenting the connection object and
 possibly more ugliness than you can shake a stick at!

This is subjective ugliness, but I don't think anyone will dispute it. You
 still only have to connect once if you know where to go ahead of time, but
 if all you know is an address and service, my solution would be handy. It
 would also be really easy to do expansion, port changes, and other such
 funny business.

To summarize, you could do everything off of one port, but since there is
 the possibility that people won't, now would be a great time to standardize.
 A system which leaves everything up in the air and provides the developer
 with all the options without sacrificing useability appeals to me greatly.

End rant.

Crag / Robert de Forest
</PRE>
