Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:59:55 -0500 | | From | Tall cool one <> | | Subject | Re: Open() UNIX socket = socket() + connect() ? |
| |
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 --' #### # # # ## # #
|  |