apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: More migration of code from httpd to apr-util
Date Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:58:02 GMT

> Which is also a requirement.  When we call namedpipe_create, we have to RETURN
> SOMETHING!  Win32 will create a pipe handle (not the same as the read/write file
> handle.)  Every (NT/2000) machine could Create or Connect to get that pipe handle.
> But once that pipe  handle is closed, the pipe evaporates, they are not persistant.

Not to be contrary, but can't we handle this by registering a cleanup with
the handle?  That way, the handle survives until we specifically clean it
up, and we shouldn't have to change the API much.  Not saying this is the
right way to go, I am just offering suggestions.

> > I have been thinking of creating apr/rpc/...   to handle stuff like this.
> > However, right now, we have named pipes.  They need to be implemented on
> > more platforms, and that may require changing the API a bit, but please
> > let's stick with what we have already.
> >
> > The only thing we can't do with named pipes today is communicate with
> > different machines.  IMHO, calling any cross-machine communication medium
> > a named pipe is just going to confuse any unix programmer.  Give it a
> > different name.
>
> No, it effectively is a named pipe.  They *really* don't differ all that much.
> The differences are in the naming rules, and Win9x compatibility.
>
> Implementors are just going to have to accept that 9x aren't Operating Systems
> in today's sense, but consumer appliances/gaming consoles, so they have
> significant drawbacks.  This does ***NOT*** imply I'm against getting httpd up
> and running on Win9x!  It just means that the sort of advanced features that
> cross-machine dce would implement can't be effectively targetted to Win9x, or
> they must be coded around.

My problem with calling this a named pipe, is that Unix named pipes can't
do cross-machine communication.  I think that if we call these things
named pipes, then in people's (Unix programmer's) minds, there weill be
limits that don't actually exist.  Yes, they can learn what we mean by
named pipes, but why make it harder than it needs to be?

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message