I certainly agree on that. There's no performance improvement. - Rush
On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bryan Duxbury wrote: > 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. >>>> >> >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
