Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca!radio_flyer!paulsc
From: paulsc@radio_flyer.WV.TEK.COM (Paul Scherf;685-2734;61-028;692-4142;orca)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: DNET for SYS V
Summary: Why not use named pipes?
Keywords: DNet
Message-ID: <4084@orca.WV.TEK.COM>
Date: 1 Aug 89 16:54:30 GMT
References: <907@corpane.UUCP> <PORTUESI.89Jul27152542@tweezers.esd.sgi.com> <SHADOW.89Jul28050225@pawl.rpi.edu>
Sender: nobody@orca.WV.TEK.COM
Reply-To: paulsc@radio_flyer.WV.TEK.COM (Paul Scherf)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR
Lines: 14

In article <SHADOW.89Jul28050225@pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes:
>The problem with DNet under SysV Unix is that it depends heavily on
>Unix-domain sockets in its current implementation.  You'd really need
>a replacement.  For a SysV machine with TCP sockets available, that
>could work.  But without some sort of sockets, you are basically left
>with the pipe() call for IPC...  which is useless for unrelated
>processes.

Why couldn't named pipes (fifo special files)
be substituted for Unix-domain sockets?
They seem to be very similar to Unix-domain sockets.

Paul Scherf, Tektronix, Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville, OR, USA
paulsc@orca.WV.Tek.com     503-685-2734     tektronix!orca!paulsc