On 13/08/2014 22:28, Grant Edwards wrote: >> Have you considered a really simple solution like dbus? > I don't know if I would call dbus "really simple". :) > > My current implementation uses Unix domain sockets (which is what dbus > usually uses, isn't it?), and I'm trying to figure out how to reduce > overhead and latency. dbus would add even more overhead (it has code > to deal with byte ordering, serial/cookies, and various other features > and abstractions). I'm not sure it's really practical for > high-frequency events (e.g 100-200 events per second).
To be honest, I'm somewhat out of my depth in this area. Sure, I can discuss it but you want details, and that I can't really provide. I mentioned dbus really just as a way to encourage you to think out of the box a little. Maybe it fits your needs, maybe not. But at least you would have given it some thought :-) Reading through the rest of the thread, perhaps dbus isn't suitable for this. You have lots of messages and they don't seem to be text-based. -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
