Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!pyrltd!root44!gwc From: gwc@root.co.uk (Geoff Clare) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: Regular pipe vs. Named Pipe Message-ID: <2736@root44.co.uk> Date: 11 Jun 91 13:03:29 GMT References: <1991Jun7.195953.27744@digi.lonestar.org> <14079@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <14192:Jun923:16:0791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Organization: UniSoft Ltd., London, England Lines: 17 brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Basically, pipes work the same way everywhere, and named pipes don't. >The name part of named pipes is their least portable aspect. Never use >them in a long-lived program if you can use any other communications >mechanism. Apart from the fact that Dan obviously didn't mean what he wrote here ("any other communications mechanism" would include a mechanism specific to one system, and therefore totally non-portable), I think he is doing named pipes an injustice. I would say that named pipes are the most portable inter-process communications mechanism after plain files and unnamed pipes. They are certainly more portable than message queues or shared memory. -- Geoff Clare (Dumb American mailers: ...!uunet!root.co.uk!gwc) UniSoft Limited, London, England. Tel: +44 71 729 3773 Fax: +44 71 729 3273