I kinda like Mike's suggestion, to have a new set of functions to support IP6.  Now if the newer IP6 stuff can work correctly in IP4 or IP6 then I think we have a winner.  Existing stuff would continue to work under IP4, and when an applications code is converted to use the new IP6 functions it might still work in an IP4 only environment. Have a newer set of functions also addresses Mark's comment of being more object oriented, rather than "procedural"...

That way I do not have to change the ooRexx programs that I have already written that use IP4.

When I want to support IP6, I can modify the code as needed to make use of the newer IP6 support. With separate libraries, as a designer, I can choose which way I want to go....

I see some problems with requiring a newer version of ".net", because I know of a number of companies that are not ready to convert to newer releases beyond WINXP, even though they will not have any official "support".  Sometimes, this is a financial issue (new hardware, new software, training, etc.), and in other cases it is because they do not have the staff to oversee an orderly conversion.  

Requiring a newer version of .NET might make some applications to be not available on an older system and/or a older application to not be available on a newer version of Windows. You also have the "special" case of  anybody who uses WINXP under a virtual machine to support applications that have not been converted to a newer Windows environment (or that are not available under Linux).

Compatability issues can be, and frequently are, complex - For Instance, I have found a number of little applications that say they work under Windows 8.1 - and they don't, unless the target system has a real touch screen - particularly error message pop-up screens that are longer then the laptop's screen height with an "OK" button at the bottom of the window....  With a touch screen you can "slide" the window up, but unless the designer provided for the old scroll bars as well, you can't scroll the windows with your mouse or cursor buttons.

This also applies to Linux environments, which as we know, are not all the same...  i.e. Ubuntu's newer screen manager environments...
or Gnome 2 -vs- Gnome 3 -vs- KDE - vs- whatever.

My vote? consider doing the IP6 under a newer set of functions.

/s/ Bill Turner, wb4alm





On 02/11/2014 11:06 AM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:

 
One of the thoughts I had before David posted the beginning of this thread is that maybe we  could use this opportunity to update rxsock itself, so that it better uses the newish APIs and is object orientated than rather than procedural. 
 
Upwards-compatible could be tricky.  

Maybe just add a new library ('rxsock6'?) which is unencumbered by past history.
 
 
Mike