Subject: Re: [boost] [interprocess] Ticket 9414 (32 process communicating with 64 process)
From: Joseph Van Riper (fleeb.fantastique_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-19 09:44:02
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Ion GaztaÃ±aga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> El 18/06/2014 17:03, Joseph Van Riper escribiÃ³:
>> It's strange that I closed it without any comment. I can't remember why I
> would do that, but that's clearly not the way to close a ticket. Sorry for
> Ah, well, I suppose sometimes we get in a hurry. Or distracted by
something else that's shiny and interesting. Heh.
>> The problem with the message queue is that it won't work at all in Linux
> between 32 and 64 bit processes because this message queue is based on
> process-shared mutex and condition variables and pthread mutex and
> condition variables provided by glibc are not compatible between 32 and 64
> bit processes.
> Ugh. I do want something that will work well on Linux as well. I've
learned that Linux, like Windows, can accommodate processes in either
32-bit or 64-bit architectures on a 64-bit machine. If my employer wants
to support 64-bit systems (and I think they do, if not immediately), they
must consider this issue.
> The alternative to have a portable message queue is to implement it over
> POSIX message queues (which uses system calls) on Unix systems and
> implement a similar interface over Windows named pipes or similar. Not
> trivial to achieve.
> In general I regret putting message_queue in Interprocess, as IMHO it's
> not good enough to be in the library. Some people find it useful, though.
It's still useful for my needs, just not quite as elegant as I would like.
I can successfully deliver information across platforms in a relatively
simple fashion. I just have to use two different servers for that purpose.
I am tempted, now, to try and build one that does what I want. I can
either do this using the time I spend working towards my needs at my job,
or I can try to do this at home, where I can then freely donate the code to
boost if the community deems it worthy. I don't think I'm the only person
who needs this, given that someone else wrote that defect.
I have a lot to learn, though.
In any event, thank you very much for your thoughtful response. It gives
me much to consider.