This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [RFD]: Egor's proposal for a Cygwin server process
- To: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Subject: Re: [RFD]: Egor's proposal for a Cygwin server process
- From: egor duda <deo at logos-m dot ru>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:54:25 +0400
- CC: cygdev <cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com>
- Organization: deo
- References: <20010531124452.G1870@cygbert.vinschen.de><041801c0e9c0$23a3e4b0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
- Reply-To: egor duda <cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com>
Hi!
Thursday, 31 May, 2001 Robert Collins robert.collins@itdomain.com.au wrote:
>> I think we will find more later on.
RC> - Persistent Clipboard data. This would allow on-demand data provision,
RC> not on-write, which would be _much_ faster for large files. (it's not
RC> _slow_ now, but it could be significantly faster if it only wrote when
RC> an application requested the data :]).
any persistent fhandler_* data, actually.
>> Has somebody a suggestion how to interact with that server process?
>> Sockets? Named pipes? Smoke signals?
RC> Smoke signals. Definately. They will offer us many benefits:
RC> * We will gain instant cross-platform access. (Smoke signals are
RC> understood equally well on any binary computer).
RC> * Lower heating bills for folk in cold places.
RC> * Smoke Access Protocol (SAP). Derived from the source for SMOKE(wet
RC> foliage), this protocol offers sticky information tagging, an important
RC> resource for a wide area system such as smoke signals.
ROTFL :)) And don't forget about _enormous_ peer review and verification
base :)
RC> More seriously?
RC> Sockets: I think this offers security issues.
RC> Named pipes: Ditto.
named pipes is (supposedly) secure enough, at least i don't know any
way to compromise them. their problem is lack of support on w9x
RC> I think COM with out-of-process only offers the capability for tight
RC> integration between the daemon and the process calling it. I'm not
RC> religious on this - just offering more work for someone else :].
i'm not sure, but i thought cross-process COM is implemented via
normal old fashioned OS mechanisms (named pipes or LPC or shared
memory).
Egor. mailto:deo@logos-m.ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19