apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sander Striker" <stri...@apache.org>
Subject RE: [PATCH] Add support for Unix domain sockets
Date Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:29:33 GMT
> From: David Reid [mailto:dreid@jetnet.co.uk]
> Sent: 11 January 2002 13:21
> To: APR Dev List
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for Unix domain sockets
> > David Reid wrote:
>>> I've been up all night so this may be off base...
>>> AFAICR sockets using AF_UNIX are essentially local inter process
>>> communication channels?
>> They are local sockets. The difference is a little like the difference
>> between IPV4 and IPV6.
>> The socket() call need a different parameter and the addresses are
>> different (bind() and connect()).
> Yeah, I know all of this :)  From memory they are normally used as IPC and
> that was what I was getting at.

>>> If this is the case then why are we having this discussion about adding
>>> more to the network_io and not simply talking about adding an ipc_ set of
>>> functions to apr that allow each platform to implement it in their own
>>> way, as we've done with all the other stuff in apr?  After all that's what
>>> apr is for isn't it? :)
>> That is only a small addition to the apr sockets.
> But that's NOT really the point is it?  The point is that not all the
> platforms can truly support this functionality and adding it just so we have
> it on some platforms and everyone else has to return ENOTIMPL seems to be
> crazy and against the very reason for APR.

I agree.  We need a portable ipc mechanism.
>> An ipc_ should be in apr-util? That is a higher level layer.
> OK, so apr-util, I could care less where it goes, it's more the concept that
> I'm concerned about.

It belongs in APR, because otherwise you have to do runtime checks in apr-util
to see if APR_ENOTIMPL is returned for unix domain sockets and then try the
thing we have as a fallback for a different platform (yuck).
> david


View raw message