X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064CB476376
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:10:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outland.mohawksoft.com (unknown [64.46.156.80])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4BA476350
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:10:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mohawksoft.com (outland.mohawksoft.com [127.0.0.1])
	by outland.mohawksoft.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with SMTP id h3PGQrf31218;
	Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:26:54 -0400
From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com
Received: from 68.162.220.216 (SquirrelMail authenticated user pgsql)
	by mail.mohawksoft.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1030.68.162.220.216.1051288014.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: close() vs. closesocket()
To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
In-Reply-To: <200304251603.h3PG36V22309@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200304251603.h3PG36V22309@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql@mohawksoft.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.0.6)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-25.0 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_01,IN_REP_TO,NO_REAL_NAME,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
	REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
X-Archive-Number: 200304/902
X-Sequence-Number: 38392

> pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
>> >=20
>> > We have never been into abstraction for the sake of abstraction.=20
>>=20
>> Would you say that is a *good* thing or a *bad* thing?
>=20
> 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.