On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Rick McGuire <object.rexx@gmail.com> wrote:
To me, it sounds like option 4 of using IPV4 mapped to IPV6 is the cleanest way to implement this.  I'm wondering if we might want to take the approach used with oodialog and separate the rxsock library from the interpreter release.  The Windows installer could then check the prereqs to ensure it can be installed on that system.  I'd hate for somebody to be unable to install the entire interpreter because their system didn't have the prereqs for something they might not even need. 

I haven't joined into the discussion much because I simply don't know much about socket programming.

But, I think Rick's last point is valid,  It would be a shame if some of the old dinosaurs couldn't install a newer version of ooRexx because of a dependency on a version of .Net that is a later version of what comes with the version of Windows they are using.

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.

One possibility would be leave rxsock just as it is and take the code base use it to produce a new extension that supports both IPv4 and IPv6.  This new extension could be a separate install, like ooDialog can be installed separately.  Users that want IPv6 support could install it, users that didn't want IPv6 could just stick with rxsock.  

I'm in favor of that, but since David is pushing this, I'm perfectly fine with whatever he wants to do.

Mark Miesfeld