On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 09:49:16PM +0200, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > i actually know very little about named unix pipes. but afaict, > yes, _unix_ named pipes are a local-only concept. > > and i advise against using unix pipes to implement this proposal, > which is to implement *nt* named pipes, which are, as you > can see from the OS/2 and NT developer SDK documentation, are > totally different from un ix named pipes.
Okay, maybe we should come up with another name besides named pipes. It is obviously confusing the hell out of us Unix people. This is obviously something other than the named pipes most of us are familiar with. I guess my attitude is, "show us the code." But, please don't call it named pipes. =) Remote pipe or something. Once we see the code, then we can provide more concrete feedback. If you already have a Unix-based implementation of remote named pipes (seems that it is in Samba - but be aware of the GPL/BSD issue - ASF can't use code derived from Samba unless *you* are the copyright holder), I'd guess that it wouldn't be too hard on your end to at least post a patch/code (within APR framework) that illustrates what you are talking about. This code might have some potential usefulness for stuff we are doing here (it could save us the overhead of implementing/using RPC). So, I'd definitely look at it - and depending upon how it works, I might even use it, too. =) -- justin
