Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number

That's funny, because earlier someone said that it did. Sent by Magic! > On Jul 10, 2016, at 12:42 PM, Rick McGuire wrote: > > > ooRexx already does not allow Rexx queue communication between different > uids. > > Rick

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number

I still have concerns about this, and please don't take this as vote against, it isn't. In my last email I specifically mentioned the Windows implementation. I still haven't seen any mention on how we are going to make Windows work the same way as *NIX. We all know the saying Rexx Anywhere,

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number

This looks interesting. I think it would be better to refactor the code so that the domain sockets are implemented by a separate class, leaving the SysCSSStream class still available if we have platforms where domain sockets are not an option. This was a much smaller change than I expected. Rick

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number

Currently, the only difference between the API daemons is how they are started. On Unix, they are designed to be started as a system service that opens a TCP port for all ooRexx clients to connect to. As a TCP port can only be opened once the daemon is shared among all users. I think on Windows,

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number

I guess I want to understand more of the details. What is the Windows implementation? What are the differences in usage, abilities, and constraints with the current implementation. Sent by Magic! > On Jul 9, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Moritz Hoffmann wrote: > > Going forward, I

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number

Going forward, I implemented unix domain sockets as a means of communication on Linux. See attached patch. I didn't commit it as we first need to reach consensus whether it should go into ooRexx 5 or not, but I think it should. It would be great if someone else could adapt the Mac and AIX code to

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number

De: Moritz Hoffmann I think a clean solution would be to use UNIX sockets on Linux and similar systems. I don't know about Mac or Windows but I'm sure there exists something equivalent. Then, each user would have its own instance of the api daemon that is accessible using

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number (Re: Running ooRexx without superuser power ... (Re: ooRexxUnit return codes

As far as I remember, there was no api daemon back then. Instead, ooRexx used shared memory to enable communication between different instanced belonging to the same user. This is definitely not the way we want things to work these days as it is hard to maintain and prone to bugs. The current

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number (Re: Running ooRexx without superuser power ... (Re: ooRexxUnit return codes

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Michael Lueck wrote: > Greetings all, > > I was thinking to ask to compare to the pre-ooRexx v4 way of handling > RXAPI, however... > > Moritz Hoffmann wrote: > > I think a clean solution would be to use UNIX sockets on Linux and >

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number (Re: Running ooRexx without superuser power ... (Re: ooRexxUnit return codes

Greetings all, I was thinking to ask to compare to the pre-ooRexx v4 way of handling RXAPI, however... Moritz Hoffmann wrote: > I think a clean solution would be to use UNIX sockets on Linux and similar > systems. I don't know about Mac or Windows but I'm sure there exists > something

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number (Re: Running ooRexx without superuser power ... (Re: ooRexxUnit return codes

There's one problem that we're currently not looking at: The api daemon uses the user name as identifier to separate between different users. The name is sent in a message from the client to the server which means that it could be forged, i.e. any user can access any other user's data. It is not

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number (Re: Running ooRexx without superuser power ... (Re: ooRexxUnit return codes

Yes, both ooRexx client program and rxapi would have to know where to look for the PID file. Unless there is a pre-arranged fall back place, something like ~/.ooRexx/rxapi.pid > On Jul 6, 2016, at 3:25 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:18 AM,

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number (Re: Running ooRexx without superuser power ... (Re: ooRexxUnit return codes

That could work, but I don’t know that a second file would be needed, couldn’t the PID file contain both PID and port? I’m also assuming that you would determine PID by matching effective user ID’s of both ooRexx client and rxapi. Also going forward this would be a solution for V5, I don’t

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number (Re: Running ooRexx without superuser power ... (Re: ooRexxUnit return codes

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > > On 05.07.2016 22:43, CVBruce wrote: > > Although this gets around the pid file problem, it doesn’t get around the > port problem, you can still only run one rxapi process per computer. For > example you

[Oorexx-devel] Using a dynamically assigned port number (Re: Running ooRexx without superuser power ... (Re: ooRexxUnit return codes

On 05.07.2016 22:43, CVBruce wrote: > Although this gets around the pid file problem, it doesn’t get around the > port problem, you can still only run one rxapi process per computer. For > example you can’t run both 32bit and 64bit rxapi concurrently on the same > box, even if your have