[nanomsg] Re: Status of Windows IPC ?
- From: Timothee Besset <ttimo@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:43:18 -0500
I had more time to spend on this, so I continued kicking the can down the
road a bit.
Martin, I could use your input on a few things.
All the named pipes APIs are working with HANDLE and not SOCKET. The IOCP
code is fairly intertwined with Winsock code so now that I have written
named pipe implementations for nn_cipc_start_connecting
and nn_bipc_start_listening, the rest of the code attempts socket
operations (like closesocket calls) and fails, because I'm abusing the
SOCKET member in nn_usock and force casting the HANDLE coming from
CreateNamedPipe to it.
I wonder if we should add a HANDLE member to nn_usock to store the named
pipe handle, and maybe have a new set of domain/type/protocol values for
IPC to distinguish? As it stands those domain, type and protocol fields
seem meaningless to me for named pipes.
TTimo
PS: Latest code for this is at
https://github.com/TTimo/nanomsg/commits/master
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Timothee Besset <ttimo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> https://github.com/TTimo/nanomsg/commit/8830bb35df171284a185f850d73a153a55d017f7
>
> Alright this is the direction I'm heading, for now I've just created the
> pipe and started listening for client connections. This seemed like the
> right things to do in nn_bipc_start_listening.
> The code still makes calls to things like nn_usock_start after that, which
> issues socket() calls and fails .. but I haven't touched the client side
> yet.
>
> Anyway, any feedback welcome. Only spent a few hours in the nanomsg
> internals at this point.
>
> TTimo
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Timothee Besset <ttimo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to better understand what's involved before committing to
>> anything there.
>> Exploring the implementation atm, I'll send more precise questions once
>> I've done a tour of the code.
>>
>> TTimo
>>
>> I'm on the irc channel btw (US timezones mostly).
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 05/04/14 04:57, Timothee Besset wrote:
>>>
>>> > - Shouldn't the documentation reflect what is actually implemented?
>>> > It is very misleading as things stand now. Especially if this has
>>> > been the situation for months.
>>>
>>> Yes. I'll fix the docs.
>>>
>>> > - How much work does this represent, closing the loop on this and
>>> > actually getting the functionality? Using a TCP loopback is a
>>> > no-go, a lot of firewalls, antivirus/malware things will get in the
>>> > way of that (we've tried).
>>>
>>> The hard part (IOCP support) I've already done. What's missing is the
>>> actual implementation of NamedPipes transport. Would you like to give
>>> it a go? In general, I think, getting Windows-specific features done
>>> tends to be a problem because there's a lot less of
>>> contribute-the-code-back mentallity in the Windows community.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>>
>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTP4DIAAoJENTpVjxCNN9YppkH/2HcmEoGs1cKYuntv1YvAoeA
>>> j77v07d6iYCy8VlXWD1yxbL8S/+hYz5prWKEAv2q2iUUrig7exBDAZT21x7tTQEI
>>> 8cBEXfvWbZNPrSGPG+4RUoGmQtWHLxBoLxF/5D26GsCrcq7HO/t4xxxQ2Tv/53n7
>>> S1Fwx8krHitizjQdXbXTXMXTOpKnsxNxW6pC7ugeuAutElH/Sea2JMMDo/SdB2ra
>>> oYB9Du533/EhuB/dpZvyrQmXKaNpDMUK1Ca4GXJzjr36mkT7qNEKC4YEARQQ0QE4
>>> kiOQwRbDX0eIb8XdtREA5pGh6nwYiLOxjAXbaMoUWTEHz590Xlnp3pyaVmhpo6Q=
>>> =8Svc
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
