DOS ain't dead

mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines (Announce)

posted by mbbrutman , Washington, USA, 22.01.2010, 16:56

> Thanks! AFAICS one can just download some applications, which include the
> statically linked TCP code. So the only tests which can be done are to try
> out these applications? Perhaps there's a possibility to provide at least a
> static library and a (small) documentation how your TCP API is supposed to
> be used? No big problem if the code is restricted to the Borland C v3.0
> compiler.

Japheth,

I am willing to provide a static library and a header file. In the past it has actually been two libraries - the TCP/IP library that the applications link directly against, and a second (smaller) library that made the first library more 'opaque' to hide some implementation details. I thought this was a less error prone approach for new users, but it was not exactly elegant.

If you are willing to take a look I would be more than happy to take your suggestions on improving it. I will review it once more and add some much needed comments.

The development environment is Borland Turbo C++ 3.0 for DOS. I am also interested in exploring Watcom as a development environment and doing a port if people find Borland Turbo C++ 3.0 for DOS too restrictive. (I figured that this forum would be a good place to learn what I need above the other development environments.)


-Mike

---
mTCP - TCP/IP apps for vintage DOS machines!
http://www.brutman.com/mTCP

Complete thread:

• mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 21.01.2010, 18:06 (Announce)
  • mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - Japheth, 22.01.2010, 09:47
    • mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 22.01.2010, 16:56
      • mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 07.02.2010, 16:35
    • Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - mbbrutman, 14.03.2010, 03:22
      • Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - Rugxulo, 14.03.2010, 03:56
        • Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - mbbrutman, 14.03.2010, 15:01
          • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 27.06.2010, 22:27
            • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Rugxulo, 28.06.2010, 06:30
              • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 28.06.2010, 12:05
                • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 28.06.2010, 14:22
                  • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 07:08
                    • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 13:14
                      • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 16:06
                    • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 01.07.2010, 13:20
                      • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 16:03
                        • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 19:16
                          • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 03.07.2010, 16:04
                        • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 14.07.2010, 03:51
  • mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 12:41
    • mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 16:09
      • mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 17:49
  • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 14:07
    • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 15:22
      • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 17:30
        • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 19:32
          • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 21:56
          • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 23.07.2010, 07:27
            • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 24.07.2010, 01:04
              • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 24.07.2010, 12:12
                • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 15:31
                  • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 24.07.2010, 15:36
                  • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 24.07.2010, 16:23
                    • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 16:57
                      • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 01:35
                        • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Rugxulo, 25.07.2010, 05:34
                          • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 25.07.2010, 06:16
                            • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 17:17
                              • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 26.07.2010, 02:03
                                • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 26.07.2010, 03:11
                                  • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 27.07.2010, 02:53
                                    • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 27.07.2010, 03:31
                                      • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 27.07.2010, 03:40