On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 10:01:35AM -0500, Karl Dahlke wrote: > > I seem to remember Windows had something like domain sockets or > > at least some other method of IPC which doesn't involve network ports. > > I really don't know. > I thought Geoff said traditional sockets were the best, perhaps only > practical form of IPC besides pipes, > but don't want to put words in his mouth so will cc to him.
Ok, I can't imagine chrome etc do things this way but I may well be wrong. Additionally, I've seen programs like chrome and firefox spawning multiple processes with the same name, presumably doing different things on Windows. I wonder how that's managed and if we can do something similar? > > I'm not particularly comfortable with ports tbh. > > I suspect whatever we do will have to have some differences between Unix and > > windows. > > Connecting using traditional sockets on network ports, > all through loopback, really doesn't bother me at all, if ports can be > reconfigured in .ebrc - > well, doesn't bother me as much as having different systems on the two OSs. > If this is the best / only way for windows, > or even a practical way on windows, > then let's just do it across the board. > We've already confirmed my socket layer works portably across both - > would probably be easy to add in udp capability if needed. > but I'm sure Geoff knows more than I do here. Other practical/flexible IPC > on Windows? Or any issues with loopback sockets in network ports? Ok, I'd feel slightly better about this if there was a way to make the port selection automatic rather than configured, it feels like multi-user would break in exciting ways otherwise. Cheers, Adam.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Edbrowse-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.the-brannons.com/mailman/listinfo/edbrowse-dev
