On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:44 PM, David Crayford <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30/03/2016 9:15 AM, John McKown wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, David Crayford <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On 29 Mar 2016, at 11:59 PM, Paul Gilmartin < >>>> >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:30:02 -0400, Scott Ford wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Isnt iBM's Unix System Services based on Posix ? >>>>> >>>> Relentlessly, but an outdated POSIX. No "cd -P" nor "pwd -L" e.g. >>>> >>>> If only the message queues were POSIX and not those horrible System V! >>> >>> >>> I gotta ask. Why would it make any difference for the same >> functionality, >> message queues, to be POSIX instead of SYSV? Unless you've got some sort >> of >> "POSIX only" rule from some manager. >> >> > Simpler, easier to use API. No need to create a file system object and > ftok a token, you can just use a namespace with mq_open() and features that > don't exist > in System V such as mq_notify() spring to mind. In in nutshell it's a > better design. Having said that the System V message queues are better than > nothing and you > don't have to be authorized to use them which is goodness. An. I see what you're getting at. It wasn't, as I had thought, that message queues are bad because they are SYSV, but that IBM should have implemented the POSIX version of message queues instead of the SYSV version. Too much gaming on my part lately. It rots the brain. -- How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
