On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:
On 07.12.2015 20:00, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote:
On 6 December 2015 at 08:29, Ondrej Pokorny <laza...@kluug.net> wrote:
If you don't persist in using SimpleIPC, there is also AdvancedIPC that
uses
the same approach (temporary files) across all targets and so it behaves
consistently.
I think SimpleIPC and AdvancedIPC complement each other. SimpleIPC
uses native IPC mechanisms, while AdvancedIPC uses a generic (file
based) mechanism. Both have advantages and disadvantages, so it's
great to have both available.
+1
Interesting point! From this point-of-view I don't have to create the
connection layer between SimpleIPC and AdvancedIPC as me&you suggested here:
http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/2015-September/035958.html
It makes sense.
Well, my initial enthousiasm cooled somewhat when I understood that you are
using a file-based approach.
if the current simpleipc implementation can be fixed, then I think that is to be preferred above
re-implementing it on top of advancedipc, because I am not very comfortable with the files approach.
The only thing that remains to be fixed in simpleipc is the multiple clients to server on unix.
It needs a semaphore to be able to function correctly.
The file-based approach is still a valid approach, since it offers other things:
- the possibility of sending a message to a non-running server
and
- receiving a response.
But for simple one-way traffic, I think simpleipc is to be preferred...
But you are right that you should not put any more effort in emulating
simpleipc, I think it would be wasted effort.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
