Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!exodus!cyber.Eng.Sun.COM!barts
From: barts@cyber.Eng.Sun.COM (Bart Smaalders barts@cyber.Eng)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Regular pipe vs. Named Pipe
Message-ID: <15011@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 12 Jun 91 20:51:04 GMT
References: <14079@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <14192:Jun923:16:0791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <2736@root44.co.uk> <25101:Jun1217:29:0291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 18
In-reply-to: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu's message of 12 Jun 91 17:29:02 GMT


The key difference between regular pipes and named pipes is that named pipes
can support communication between unrelated processes.  Since one cannot get
unrelated processes to communicate using regular pipes, it is trivially easy
to construct an example where the statement:

   In fact, a program which does anything with named pipes that couldn't be
   done with pipes is almost certainly going to fail on one of (A) SunOS;
   (B) Ultrix; (C) SVR4.

is false, if we allow the word program to mean programS.  If all that is
desired is communication between related programs, use the pipe call.

Named pipes are a useful way of performing communication between processes.
It fits in well with X programs, since named pipes support select.  This is
in distinct contrast to other SV IPC paradigms.

- Bart Smaalders (barts@Eng.sun.com)