Re: Open() UNIX socket = socket() + connect() ?
Tall cool one (ice@mama.indstate.edu)
Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:59:55 -0500
H. Peter Anvin <hpa@transmeta.com> writes:
> Followup to: <199712162059.VAA00172@mamba.pond.sub.org>
> By author: Felix Schroeter <felix@mamba.pond.sub.org>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > BSD does not support open() on UNIX domain sockets, either. I've
> > talked to a friend about that. He thinks that while there's no good
> > reason against that support, if open() on sockets were implemented
> > e.g. on Linux, of course rather some people would actually use it,
> > unnecessarily making their programs less portable. So in the real
> > world, with diverse UNIX like operating systems, that feature would
> > probably do more damage than use.
> >
> > And it isn't too difficult to do socket() and connect() yourself,
> > anyway.
> >
>
> There is a huge advantage to it, though: it would enable a way to let
> programs written to read (or write) to a file rather talk to a
> process. The problem with fifos is that there is only one data path,
> so only one program can play this trick at a time, whereas with
> sockets there is one data path for each connection open.
What you need is a better shell, that can give you bi-directional pipes or
sockets on the fly, without even going through the filesystem. A better
shell could let you talk to a process on another machine entirely.
I suppose perl would work, too bad I don't like perl.
- Steve
.------------------------------------------------. # * # # # # # #
| Steve Baker | Barely Working | # ## # # # # #
| ice@mama.indstate.edu | System Administrator | # # # # # # # #
| Red-Hat Rulz! | Will work for hardware | # # # ## # # # #
`-- SYS-ADMIN FOR HIRE, HAVE UNIX, WILL TRAVEL --' #### # # # ## # #