Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 06, 2016, 06:13:55 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Named Pipes for Inter Process Communication  (Read 1524 times)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Named Pipes for Inter Process Communication
« on: March 12, 2011, 06:10:10 AM »
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Named Pipes for Inter Process Communication
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2011, 07:53:13 AM »
What's wicked cool about it?

It's a ├╝ber-lowlevel approach, the blog post doesn't mention sockets, the author confuses message queueing with SendMessage-style messages, and dismisses memory-mapped files entirely. Also, reading the blog comments, it sounds like the code is buggy and haven't been fixed even though race conditions were mentioned as early as March 15, 2010 - that's almost a year ago. Caveat Emptor.

Only briefly scanned through the code, but it looks like it only handles byte streams and spawns a thread per connection? Ho humm. Not the abstraction level I'd like to work at; thread per connection might be excusable since you're not likely to have a crapload of connections, but for something general-purpose I'd prefer async I/O.

Oh, and it also seems the code requires a connect/data-xfer/disconnect for each "message" rather than supporting connected mode - not good if you need to do high-performance stuff.
- carpe noctem

Jibz

  • Developer
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,126
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Named Pipes for Inter Process Communication
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2011, 08:11:28 AM »
I think Renegade should get a "My post got run over by the f0dder-truck"-badge for that one :D.

Sorry couldn't help it :mrgreen:.

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Named Pipes for Inter Process Communication
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2011, 08:44:41 AM »
I think Renegade should get a "My post got run over by the f0dder-truck"-badge for that one :D.
:-[
- carpe noctem

Jibz

  • Developer
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,126
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Named Pipes for Inter Process Communication
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2011, 09:39:43 AM »
Just for the record, I wouldn't have posted a comment like that if I didn't know f0dder would know I meant it lovingly .. he's got a wealth of technical knowledge and it's great that he shares it here :-*.