home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: fouts@bozeman.bozeman.ingr (Martin Fouts)
-
-
- >>>>> On 4 Oct 90 20:39:37 GMT, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) said:
-
- Chip> According to fouts@bozeman.bozeman.ingr (Martin Fouts):
- >One reason to not treat every IPC facility as part of the file system:
- >Shared memory IPC mechanisms which don't need to be visible to processes
- >not participating in the IPC.
-
- Chip> Yes, it is obviously desirable to have IPC entities without names.
- Chip> This feature is a simple extension of the present ability to keep a
- Chip> plain file open after its link count falls to zero. Of course, the
- Chip> committee could botch the job by making it an error to completely
- Chip> unlink a live IPC.
- Chip> --
-
- Of course, if I have to acquire a file handle for my IPC, I can't
- imlement it as efficiently as if I just do it locally in shared memory
- and don't bother the system about it's existance.
-
- Marty
- --
- Martin Fouts
-
- UUCP: ...!pyramid!garth!fouts (or) uunet!ingr!apd!fouts
- ARPA: apd!fouts@ingr.com
- PHONE: (415) 852-2310 FAX: (415) 856-9224
- MAIL: 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94303
-
- Moving to Montana; Goin' to be a Dental Floss Tycoon.
- - Frank Zappa
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 205
-
-