Hi, Thanks for you reply. >From your experience, do you know what thrift transport type is usually used for windows ipc?
Thx, Moshe. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Randy Abernethy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Moshe, > > Couple of thoughts. > > First Apache Thrift is open source so you can always improve the NamedPipes > Transport impl to meet your needs and submit a patch to get the changes > into the trunk.Nothing faster on Windows than an IOCompletion port based > server using pipes in my experience, alas there are no IO Completion port > servers in tree. There was an IO Completion port server in Java submitted > once upon a time but never committed. If you build a good one we would of > course accept the patch for that as well. > > Second there are also good reasons to consider sockets. Using Sockets you > can talk to anything anywhere, Microsoft has a very fast TCP/IP stack also > and if you use localhost (rather than a real interface) things take the > fast path in the Windows Executive. I haven't done any tests lately but you > might find sockets and localhost competitive with native options for local > IPC while leaving you with a more open solution. > > Would love to hear which way you go and what you find out along the way. > > Best, > Randy > (typing from Netanya) > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Mos Yud <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to use thrift rpc (on local host) for windows, and i need > some > > recommendation for the transport layer to use. > > One of the mandatory requirements is rpc timeout which is supported only > by > > TSocket and unfortunately isn't supported by TPipe. > > On the other hand, using sockets for ipc is less efficient/error prone > then > > using pipes (i.e. firewall rule that blocks the connection accidentally > or > > as a result of some error). > > > > Do you have any recommendation for this issue? > > > > Thx, > > Moshe. > > >
