Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Monday 19 August 2002 12:43 pm, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
>> "Angus Leeming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > > And I really think that we should ditch pipes as well and move on to
>> > > local sockets.
>> >
>> > What about OS/2 and Windows? Do they have local sockets?
>>
>> No local sockets on Windows... Actually, lyxserver has never worked on
>> windows since there's no mkfifo in cygwin.
>
| André's pipestream class that he posted this morning uses sockets.
>
| The good news is that this class is a cut-down version of socket++
>
| http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/lavender/courses/socket++/
>
| and socket++ most definitely /does/ support Windows, using Winsock.
>
| Now I understand how an external program can communicate with LyX using
| pipes; it just has to open the pipes and start talking to LyX.
>
| I don't understand how it could do the same if we used sockets. Wouldn't LyX
| have to start up the external program? Sort of defeats the purpose if I
| understand things correctly.
I it just as a network socket... except that you don't connect to a
port on the specified computer, but to a named socket (i.e. a file)
instead.
The really great benefit of named sockets/local sockets is that they
allow multiple clients. With named pipes you can only have one client
at a time.
| As you can see, this is all new stuff to me, so I'd be grateful if some guru
| could give me a brief overview of how things would work.
so you have not played with network programming?
--
Lgb
