> From: David Reid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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.
Indeed. >>> 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 Sander
