What do we need Mach semaphores for? You mention issues with named pipes, but what about anonymous pipes? I'm curious why we need a different implementation on OSX and Linux. It seems worth while if we can have a shared implementation that meets all of our requirements.
What are the requirements? -Darin On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Jeremy Moskovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Replying to a previous comment by jam: > >> I'm not familiar with OS X so I can't comment on which specific >> implementation to use. However I'm wondering if it's possible to code >> proof of concepts of each method and time the latency? This will >> matter even more if plugins are planned to be run out of process, in >> which case there will be a lot of synchronous messages. >> > > Mach ports have the distinct advantage that they allow us to send Mach > semaphores between processes and there's a good chance that FIFOs are > implemented on top of them. So I think the decision is pretty clear for us. > > I definitely agree with you about the performance tests - if we don't have > those already, it would definitely be good to add a bunch of them for the > IPC Channel. > > Best regards, > Jeremy > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Jeremy Moskovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> You can find the design document for OS X IPC at: >> >> http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-documents/os-x-interprocess-communication >> >> This document is a work in progress, feedback and comments are >> welcome. >> >> Best regards, >> Jeremy >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
