On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 08:36:35AM -0500, Karl Dahlke wrote: > > I'm also going to look into IPC mechanisms for Windows > > Geoff says that if you want portable flexible interprocess communication, > (more flexible than pipes), you have to bite the bullet and use sockets. > Processes listen on certain ports, send messages to each other via tcp, > using send() and recv(), which are both unix and windows calls. > It's rather a pain to set up initially but when it is rolling it works fine. > I'm not looking forward to that, > but as I think about itI'm more convinced he's right, > and why should I have to think about it at all; he's the expert. > He knows.
Agreed, sockets was where I was thinking of heading with this. I thought Windows had something like unix domain sockets rather than ports though but I don't know. At any rate, I'd go for UDP rather than TCP for local IPC, that way we can easily multiplex sockets rather than having to multiplex TCP connections. Any thoughts? Cheers, Adam.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Edbrowse-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.the-brannons.com/mailman/listinfo/edbrowse-dev
