Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!oliveb!pyramid!uccba!hal!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Here's the flame everyone's asking for (was Re: Shared Memory in BSD4.3 is lacking?)
Message-ID: <7507@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: 15 Mar 88 21:58:37 GMT
References: <9100@ism780c.UUCP> <2329@umd5.umd.edu> <2009@ho95e.ATT.COM> <43@kenobi.UUCP> <997@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <47@kenobi.UUCP>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards
Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh
Lines: 21

As quoted from <47@kenobi.UUCP> by ford@kenobi.UUCP (Mike Ditto):
+---------------
| In article <997@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> jgm@5555tK.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (John Myers) writes:
| > In article <43@kenobi.UUCP> ford@kenobi.UUCP (Mike Ditto) writes:
| > Then why the heck can't you open(2) a BSD unix domain socket?  The
| > semantics seem pretty obvious. (Create a new socket and connect to
| > the socket named in the open call.)  Sounds like <10 lines of code to
| > me.
| 
| The main reason that I see is that a Unix domain socket is not really
| supposed to show up in the filesystem, and it supposedly doesn't in
+---------------

Ah, but this is *exactly* the same as System V IPC!  Make up your minds:
why is a BSD socket not supposed to be in the file namespace, but System V IPC
(in particular, message queues and semaphores) is flamed for it?  (I will not
yet concede the point with shared memory:  the Sequent method sounds best to
me, but then why does only Sequent use it?)
-- 
	      Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc
       {well!hoptoad,uunet!hnsurg3,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery