David Reid wrote: > > I've been up all night so this may be off base... > > AFAICR sockets using AF_UNIX are essentially local inter process > communication channels?
They are local sockets. The difference is a little like the difference between IPV4 and IPV6. The socket() call need a different parameter and the addresses are different (bind() and connect()). > > If this is the case then why are we having this discussion about adding more > to the network_io and not simply talking about adding an ipc_ set of > functions to apr that allow each platform to implement it in their own way, > as we've done with all the other stuff in apr? After all that's what apr is > for isn't it? :) That is only a small addition to the apr sockets. An ipc_ should be in apr-util? That is a higher level layer. > > This may take a bit of getting the api correct (at least to allow it work on > all platforms) but I'm sure we can manage it. > > david > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:03 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for Unix domain sockets > > > From: "jean-frederic clere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:44 AM > > > > > > > I would like to see this patch committed. > > > I am using AF_UNIX sockets in mod_jk and it would be nice to do it thru > APR > > > instead my own code. > > > > > > About win32 support I am afraid I cannot help. But I think it is a > little like > > > IPV6 on IPV4 only machines: we should just say APR_LOCAL is not > supported on > > > win32. > > > > I could be convinced here [for a change :-] > > > > Since this is a fairly old addition to the -sockets- layer, I can't really > > stand in the way. We aren't talking about specific platforms, but a > sockets > > feature. If winsock doesn't add it, their loss. > > > > We need to return APR_ENOTIMPL for that, I suppose. > > > > Bill > > > >
