Re: [boost] [Interprocess] Named pipe interface proposal

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
> that
> > 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
option.

> > Also, FYI, I'm doing this project as an independent study through my CS
> program.
> > 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
> path
> of
> > 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
> in
> > 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.

-John V