On quarta-feira, 10 de outubro de 2012 11.03.21, Kevin Krammer wrote:
> Not related to performance, but often the main reason to use techniques
> such as QLocalSocket is better access control.
> Any process (running as any user) on the machine can attempt a connect to a
> TCP socket on the loopba
On Monday, 2012-10-08, Charley Bay wrote:
> QUESTION: If you logically need a "network-socket" (LAN or WAN, but
> sometimes accidentally on the same-computer), is there a *performance*
> issue (or any reasonable design preference) where QLocalSocket would
> be "preferable" to a QTcpSocket? (...i
On 9 October 2012 17:59, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> The question is only whether there's more overhead in kernel mode. A quick
> check over the cubicle wall here answers that there is a little overhead more
> with TCP, since it must still verify the netfilter rules (think iptables).
You should take
On terça-feira, 9 de outubro de 2012 17.27.52, Joerg Bornemann wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 15:12, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> >> There's AFAIK no "short cut" for pure localhost TCP
> >> connections.
> >
> > There are. For instance, checksums are not computed nor checked for
> > packets travelling through
09.10.2012, 01:23, "Charley Bay" :
> Does the "MyLocalSocketOrTcpSocket" class seem stupid, or should I
> just use "QTcpSocket" all the time?
You can create your socket-enabled class as template taking either
QTcpSocket or QLocalSocket, since APIs are mostly the same.
--
Regards,
Konstantin
__
On 09/10/2012 15:12, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>> There's AFAIK no "short cut" for pure localhost TCP
>> connections.
>
> There are. For instance, checksums are not computed nor checked for
> packets travelling through the loopback interface.
But there's still more overhead (e.g. context switches)
On terça-feira, 9 de outubro de 2012 14.42.32, Knoll Lars wrote:
> > What you're asking for is an intermediate base between QAbstractSocket
> > and
> > QIODevice, but I'm not sure how much it's worth. What methods from
> > QAbstractSocket do you need which are also common (same signature)
> > betwe
On Oct 9, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 9 de outubro de 2012 14.12.16, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>> On 9 October 2012 13:03, Joerg Bornemann wrote:
>>> There's AFAIK no "short cut" for pure localhost TCP
>>> connections.
>>
>> There are. For instance, checksums are
On terça-feira, 9 de outubro de 2012 14.12.16, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 9 October 2012 13:03, Joerg Bornemann wrote:
> > There's AFAIK no "short cut" for pure localhost TCP
> > connections.
>
> There are. For instance, checksums are not computed nor checked for
> packets travelling through th
On 9 October 2012 13:03, Joerg Bornemann wrote:
> There's AFAIK no "short cut" for pure localhost TCP
> connections.
There are. For instance, checksums are not computed nor checked for
packets travelling through the loopback interface.
Cheers,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo
__
On 08/10/2012 23:23, Charley Bay wrote:
> QUESTION: If you logically need a "network-socket" (LAN or WAN, but
> sometimes accidentally on the same-computer), is there a *performance*
> issue (or any reasonable design preference) where QLocalSocket would
> be "preferable" to a QTcpSocket? (..
I stumbled across an interesting discussion from Feb-2008 about using
QTcpSocket and QLocalSocket, which also suggested the design might be
revisited post Qt5:
http://blog.qt.digia.com/2008/02/22/qlocalserver-qlocalsocket/
REVIEW:
- QTcpSocket (derived from QAbstractSocket) is really a
network-
12 matches
Mail list logo
