Seems to me IPC/LPC/RPC focuses on the wrong distinction. I think the right one is between async message-passing (over a socket), where the receiver decides when to handle the message, and synchronous/direct memory manipulation (shared mmap, rdma), where the "client" manipulates the "server's" (rather, shared) memory directly. In the former case, the server has more gatekeeper-like control over scheduling, and in the latter, the server may need to poll the shared memory segment in order to know a write has happened. On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:47 Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > How do others feel of my redefinition of IPC to mean the same memory > space > > communication (either via shared memory or rdma) versus RPC as socket > based > > communication? > > > > > IPC already has a strong definition which is close to what you want so it > isn't so strange. > > On the other hand, you could coin something like LPC (local process > communication) to contrast with RPC (remote process communication). > -- -- Cheers, Leif
