Re: Re: Re: IPC Question

["Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Oops ... never done ch14 Stevens. Was about to say so many sockets
> might be too heavy before I saw that he says AF_LOCAL sockets are
> significantly faster than AF_INET sockets.

Well, they will surely be heavy if I connect one local X server/client thr.
each of them. But that won't be the case. The reason I want a stream
interface is that I don't know amount of data being passed in advance. For
sure it won't be huge. They will be just number of IPC channels lying
around.

>
> I suggested message queues 'coz they allow you to assign priorities to
> individual messages and so I suppose you could have different threads
> reading only appropriate messages off the single queue rather than the
> multiple sockets that would otherwise be required.

I haven't checked off queues from my list but the fact that it's not a
stream interface put lot of management burdon on my application. I don't
mind doing that but that may introduce unnecessary bugs. I mean I can avoid
them if I use a stream interface already available.

> When you use named sockets (fifo), what descriptor do you need to pass?

Actually none. But named pipes are kinda static in my opinion, so I lowered
their rank in my inteded application.

> > BTW, AFAICT, message queues does not support huge amount of data. I
would
> No idea about that.

Actually that's one important thing I need to check out...

 Bye
  Shridhar