Il 01/01/2021 01:43, Cameron Simpson ha scritto:
On 01Jan2021 01:21, jak <nos...@please.ty> wrote:
Il 01/01/2021 00:58, 2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com ha scritto:
Most of the time, I have several shells open, often with their own
background jobs running. Limiting write permission on the pipe to "me"
wouldn't prevent concurrent access.
This is true but there would be no difference if this happened through
a socket.
Accessing a socket makes a distinct separate data connection - other
openers do not conflict with it. That's the critical difference between
a socket and a pipe in terms of functionality, and why sockets have a
connect/accept step.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@cskk.id.au>
Maybe the fact that I'm not English and I don't know the language well
doesn't allow me to express myself clearly. Try it one more time:
The OP would like to give some command to a script that is running. How?
With a script that sends commands to it. One of the ways, as mentioned,
is by using a mini socket server. Given the needs of the OP and the fact
that sockets are a limited resource in a system, I took the liberty of
proposing a simple alternative: using a named pipe, also because, IMO,
sockets, in this case, are an overkill. with a few lines of code in a
thread in the running script they can allow it to receive commands:
#-----------------
import os, errno
fnpipe = 'cmdpipe'
try:
os.mkfifo(fnpipe)
except OSError as e:
if e.errno != errno.EEXIST:
raise
while True:
with open(fnpipe, 'rt', 1) as fifo:
for line in fifo:
print(line, ends='')
#-----------------
Running the command:
$ cat bible.txt > cmdpipe & cat bible.txt > cmdpipe & cat bible.txt >
cmdpipe
the three texts do not mix. IMO, the OP should be enough. after that, I
know that a pipe is more like a queue than a soket and in this case a
socket, IMO, is wasted.
greetings, hoping to have been clearer than before.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
