On Tuesday 08 January 2002 01:39 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:04 PM
> 
> 
> > On Tuesday 08 January 2002 12:41 pm, Mladen Turk wrote:
> 
> > > From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:53 PM
> > > 
> > > > I'm also looking at the API and understand why you were worried about 
> > > > the
> > > > anon.  But what you describe is a hybrid, a named, anon shm.  For now, 
> > > > we
> > > > will be using backing files; adding both keyed and named create where 
> > > > the
> > > > platform supports both is a reasonable potential improvement in the
> > > > future.
> > > 
> > > The reason for using a filename and a NAME for that file (that was my
> > > initial post to Aaron) has nothing to do with the keyed/named created 
> > > shms.
> > > Simply, the Apache could create whatever shmem file with some NAME, and 
> > > the
> > > rest of the world can access it simply using that NAME.
> 
> Windows names the backing file seperately from an attach()able shared segment.
> Since this is file backed, we will create a 'flat' name (convert the colon and
> slashes to some neutral character and truncate off the left to 255 chars),
> and added to the W2K Terminal Server Global\ namespace.
> 
> So Mladen, we address your concerns.  Someday in the future, we could create
> a 'named' anon (this is called 'keyed' in apr nomenclature) and it's up to
> the processes to agree on an identity.  Since the 'key' is an int, a simple
> name like Local\apr_shm_##### would work.  Again, that's a future improvement 
> :)
> 
> 
> > I'm confused, the NAME is the filename.
> 
> No, to the attach()er, it follows the schema above.

No.  The whole point is that you have to have some way to communicate the
name to the second process. You always use a file, and if you are dealing
with key'ed shared memory, the file just contains the key.  The second process
just reads the file, gets the key, and does the attach.

Ryan

______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                              [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to