Subject: Re: [boost] [Interprocess] Named pipe interface proposal
From: John Venarchick (john.venarchick+boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-15 14:40:41
> > > I would URGE you to make this exclusively a Boost.ASIO implementation.
I also agree, an ASIO implementation is the way to go with this.
> > 3. There seemed to be some confusion regarding named pipes on POSIX.
> > > The only difference between Windows and POSIX named pipes is that the
> > > former use the NT kernel namespace, within which the filing systems
> > > are mount points, whereas the latter use the filing system namespace
> > > directly. In my own code, I use a magic directory in /tmp as the
> > > namespace for all my named pipes in the system in an attempt to
> > > replicate a similar behavior to Windows, but there are many other ways
> > > of doing the same thing.
> > >
> > Hmmm, I see what you're saying and I agree with it, but I'm also not sure
> > it's strictly true that this is the "only" difference.
also a +1 to using POSIX pipes instead of domain sockets. I don't think
you'd need to copy Niall's /tmp/ magic directory or if so make that an
> > Also, FYI, I'm doing this project as an independent study through my CS
> > I'm getting close to the end of the quarter and I need to have something
> > concrete to show for my efforts. Since I've already started down the
> > implementing this not inside of Boost.ASIO, for the purposes of my school
> > project I'm going to continue with that. However, I plan to continue
> working on
> > it after the scholastic bit is finished, and then I would be interested
> > implementing it as part of ASIO.
That's pretty cool as a CS project. I hope you get a good grade.
I've done far too much with Windows pipes and would definitely like to see
an ASIO interface if not just to replace what I'm doing now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk