Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-lcc!pyramid!athertn!joshua
From: joshua@athertn.Atherton.COM (Flame Bait)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: IPC vs. SOCKET
Message-ID: <2005@joshua.athertn.Atherton.COM>
Date: 25 Apr 89 21:22:58 GMT
References: <42b9642b.b11a@falcon.engin.umich.edu> <2123@runx.ips.oz>
Reply-To: joshua@atherton.com (Flame Bait)
Organization: Atherton Technology, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 29

Someone (at falcon.engin.umich.edu?) wrote:
>> Are there any comments on the relative merits of working
>> with Apollo C socket calls and/or Apollo IPC calls?  Any
>> good or horror stories?  Why are both supported?  Thanks for
>> the info.

To which avenger@runx.ips.oz (Troy Rollo ) wrote:
[ A few well written paragraphs on why the Apollo stuff is better than 
  sockets.]

I just finished writing some IPC code.  It took me a half day to write
and a half day to test.  I used neither sockets nor the Apollo stuff,
but rather UNIX's msgget, msgsnd, msgrcv, and mscgcnt routines.  They
were exactly what I wanted, and very easy to use.  (I do not use Apollos
anymore, so I do not know if these routines are part of SR 10.  I'm just
assuming that since SR 10 is real UNIX, that it includes these routines.
There is book called "Advanced UNIX Programming" by Marc J. Rochkind 
(Prentice-Hall Software series) which explans how all this works.)

The msg* routines send messages from process to process.  There are also
shm* routines to handle shared memory, and sem* routines to handle semifors
(sp?).

Joshua Levy
--------                Quote: "If you haven't ported your program, it's not
Addresses:                      a portable program.  No exceptions."  
joshua@atherton.com OR         
sun!athertn!joshua  OR                 
{backbone}!{decwrl!hpda}!athertn!joshua  work:(408)734-9822 home:(415)968-3718