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.
fcl-process also has pipes unit and then "pipesipc" which apparently
does not use pipes. (?)
The semantics of names pipes varies across different OSes. I've used the
unix equivalent on Linux for the specific reason that I wanted to
explore issues of naming etc., but porting to Windows turned out to be
problematic despite my having used the MS/IBM variant in the past.
Use SimpleIPC unless you have an informed reason not to.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
