Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:58:47 -0800 From: Craig Shaver <craig@ProGroup.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to SYSV IPC? Message-ID: <330F41E7.794BDF32@ProGroup.com> References: <199702210119.RAA00608@lightside.com> <Mutt.19970222122927.j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J Wunsch wrote: > > As Jake Hamby wrote: > > > ..., but what about messages? Sockets could be used, but they just > > provide an arbitrary stream of bytes, not discrete messages. FIFOs > > have the same problem, and pollute the filename space (I have the > > same problem with using mmap() for shared memory). > > What else than `an arbitrary stream of bytes' is a message? Define > your message to be a structure, with a length and type field at the > beginning, and type-dependant data following. > > FIFOs (or local-domain sockets) don't pollute the name space more than > SysV msgs did. Remember, all that SYSVIPC created a second (and 3rd > etc.) namespace, with an inconsitent set of programs to handle them, > and even inconsistent attributes, IIRC. I have built some applications that had to keep track of multiple cgi requests that required some capability of returning a response to the same cgi that made the request. I used the SYSV IPC for messages. Yes, it is inconsistent with everything else, but it does work. I believe the only alternative I could come up with was UDP datagrams. And then I would have had to build a layer or 2 on top of that to parcel out the responses to the correct cgi. SYSV message queues are convenient, easy to use, and they work. What's the big deal here? -- Craig Shaver (craig@progroup.com) (415)390-0654 Productivity Group POB 60458 Sunnyvale, CA 94088
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?330F41E7.794BDF32>