httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject RE: Tempnam(3), Tempfile(3) vs mktemp(3) on BSD
Date Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:03:04 GMT
Straight from the SDK;

Anonymous Pipes
Windows NT/2000: Anonymous pipes are implemented using a named pipe with a
unique name. Therefore, you can often pass a handle to an anonymous pipe to
a function that requires a handle to a named pipe.

ergo, SetNamedPipeHandleState does accept a handle returned from CreatePipe.

I hope this is what you were looking for.

I will be looking at a fully async CGI implementation shortly (at least
under NT), if noone else beats me to it.  I'm not clear if the Linux port is
async, but it didn't appear to be, and seemed to lock also at 64KB

I'd rather not muck with our own uniquified names unless we are running on
95/98.  If it's not there already I can throw together a version detection
patch to share a ap_win32_is_nt flag.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On Behalf Of
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 8:37 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Tempnam(3), Tempfile(3) vs mktemp(3) on BSD
> > Let me clarify this - a nameless pipe in Windows NT/2000
> (NOT on 95/98)
> > _IS_A_NAMED_PIPE_!  It is, in fact, a randomly named pipe.
> That may be so, but we searched at IBM for a couple of days
> to find the
> correct API's to make unnamed pipes non-blocking.  We couldn't do it.
> Now, maybe we just missed the right function, but we couldn't
> do it.  If
> you can find the API's to implement non-blocking I/O with
> unnamed pipes,
> send a patch.  Regardless, we can always just have Apache generate the
> name itself.
> Ryan
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________________
> Ryan Bloom               
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------

View raw message