Re: [lwip-devel] brain storming about "socket2"

[Jonathan Larmour]

bill wrote:
>> I guess I'll be heading back to Interniche if that is the case.
> 
> Did you benchmark the two stacks?  Perhaps a definitive performance
> benchmark is the way to make this choice.  I had to make this choice and
> chose lwIP even though I have to develop the Altera TSE port (no one
> seems to have done it).  The port is difficult because the hardware API
> is married to the Interniche stack (the HAL APIs use Interniche data
> structures) and Interniche is married to uC-OS/2 (delete uC-OS/2 in the
> IDE and it deletes Interniche too).  Most reports have it that the
> "SUPERLOOP" mode doesn't work.  I'm not using sockets and NO_SYS (using
> a cooperative tasking system instead) and counting on the lower level
> lwIP implementation being more efficient.  If I'm correct and it is, why
> wouldn't lwIP sockets be more efficient than Interniches?
> 
> If I have time to benchmark, I will, but it's not apples to apples.
> 
> Maybe Jifl can clarify the statement he made because it does sound
> shocking.

I think I've done lots of clarification! It all comes down to this: given a
free choice, a custom API is more efficient than the sockets API. That's
true no matter what the stack. That was my point, and was not saying
anything bad about lwIP's socket API, which as many people can attest,
works great for what they need.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric Limited      http://www.eCosCentric.com/     The eCos experts
Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK.       Tel: +44 1223 245571
Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071.
------["Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere"]------       Opinions==mine