From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com
To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Cc: pgsql@mohawksoft.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: close() vs. closesocket()
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1030.68.162.220.216.1051288014.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200304251603.h3PG36V22309@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200304251603.h3PG36V22309@candle.pha.pa.us>
> pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
>> >
>> > We have never been into abstraction for the sake of abstraction.
>>
>> Would you say that is a *good* thing or a *bad* thing?
>
> A good thing --- too much abstraction is bad --- look at Mozilla for a
> chilling example.
>
Anyone can find a *bad* example of something good. I did justify my
statement with a "reasonable" cause.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql@mohawksoft.com, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Subject: Re: close() vs. closesocket()
In-Reply-To: <1030.68.162.220.216.1051288014.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox