On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Juha Manninen wrote:
I must implement communication between 2 processes. I believe SimpleIPC is good for that purpose and it is well tested in a cross-platform system (Lazarus <-> ChmHelp). Named pipes were suggested to me. I would like to know the benefits / handicaps of SimpleIPC compared to named pipes. I will have to answer such questions myself soon.
The semantics of named pipes are rather different on Windows and Unix. I would not recommend them for cross-platform implementations.
fcl-process also has pipes unit and then "pipesipc" which apparently does not use pipes. (?)
These pipes are different from named pipes. This is simply 2 file descriptors. What is written to the first, can be read from the other. You need 3 such pipes to be able to redirect stdin/stdout/stderr between processes.
Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
