Amos Shapira wrote: > On 15/03/07, *Constantine Shulyupin* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > named pipe is a pipe > > > In that case one should be able to take advantage of the faster pipes > even for 1:n situations. > > --Amos > How?
If three clients open a named pipe for writing, they just get the same write end of the pipe. The server gets the data without any indication on who wrote what. If the write chunks are big enough, there is even no guarantee that the chunks won't be split with chunks from other process in the middle. These are not unsolvable problems, but they are problems. All of them do not exist in the socket case. If you insist on using pipes instead of sockets, a much saner approach would be to open a unix socket, get requests on it, and for each requester allocate a dedicate pipe and pass the fd to the calling process through the "fd copy through unix socket" mechanism. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
