Good morning everyone,
This thread was a month ago, but I just thought I should follow up in
case someone else runs into this later and has the same question.
I was able to work around this with no real problem by just spawning
off a new process and letting the parent die. I for some
Good morning,
OK, I feel like an idiot, because this seems to me like a
straightforward thing, but not only can I not get it to work, I can't
seem to even find information about it. When I search for apache and
named pipe or fifo I keep getting tons of information about making
the logs pipe
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:56:56 -0700
Mysterious Mose webmas...@drdemento.com wrote:
I just want a plain named pipe as a file on the web server.
How are you trying to access it? A named pipe isn't a regular
file, and can't in general be treated as such.
Not having tried it with apache, I
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Mysterious Mose
webmas...@drdemento.com wrote:
Good morning,
[…]
Why is this so difficult, and why aren't more people interested in
doing this? It seems like such a simple thing to do. If I create a
named pipe and write data to it, cat can get the data
Good morning Nick!
Funny enough, you were the one who responded to the November 2009
thread that I saw earlier.
How I'm trying to access it is just through a regular HTTP GET, like
it was any other file. I feel like named pipes behave like regular
files for the most part when you're in
Good morning Tom,
Thank you for your response! It's too bad things aren't as simple as I
think they should be. :-)
I do understand how named pipes work in general on Unix, how you must
have a reader and a writer for anything to happen.
If I create a named pipe and have no writer
On 3/22/2012 8:56 AM, Mysterious Mose wrote:
I just want a plain named pipe as a file on the web server. I will
write information to the pipe, and when a web browser accesses the
pipe, it will read the information. Simple, right? But whenever I try
to access the pipe through the web, I
