Interesting. Never thought about that. Thanks for the info.
-- ..Cheers Mark On 9/14/07, Julien Vermillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On loopback you won't drop UDP packets, that's the trick ;) > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:49:14 -0400 > Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think even I am getting confused. I have a group of processes on a > > box that will always be on the same box, so I was looking for a fast > > way for them to communicate. My options are: > > > > TCP over loopback > > Unix Domain Sockets > > Pipes > > > > Pipes will not fulfill my needs, so I was looking into Unix Domain > > Sockets(UDS). Since there are no NIO providers for UDS, I was > > interested in writing my own and that is when I posed the question to > > the list. But if TCP over loopback is not going to be any faster > > than UDS, then I will stick with TCP over loopback. UDP is not an > > option because I cannot drop packets. > > > > Sorry for the confusion. I hope this clears things up. > > Thank you. > > >
