I apologize for being ambiguous in my prior email. I meant to say that unix sockets are no *faster* than TCP sockets. You are correct that there are other benefits. I'd certainly accept patches for domain sockets if they were well done.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Rush Manbert <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't want to start a debate, but I beg to differ. Unix domain sockets > have a couple of nice features: > 1) They don't offer any way for an outsider to access your service, which > is possible if you make a mistake using TCP sockets. The domain sockets > don't offer an attack point for a hacker. > 2) There are no port numbers to deal with, which just makes things simpler. > > My Thrift-in-Windows patch ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-591) adds an Asio > implementation that works for both *nix and Windows (C++ only) and adds Unix > Domain Socket support. Caveat emptor, of course, but we're using it in > production on Mac OS X and Windows so that local applications can talk to a > daemon running as a service. > > - Rush > > On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:04 AM, Bryan Duxbury wrote: > > > I thought the same thing and did some exploration. Ultimately, I > determined > > that domain sockets are no better than TCP sockets, even against > localhost. > > I recommend you just use TCP. > > > > -Bryan > > > > 2010/8/4 Bahadır Doğan <[email protected]> > > > >> Hello > >> > >> Is there any attempt to use Unix Domain Sockets as the transportation > layer > >> with Thrift? > >> Isn't it nice to make server and client applications in the same machine > >> talking with Thrift? Or am I wrong? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >
