[nanomsg] Re: Status of Windows IPC ?
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 06:04:24 +0200
-----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:
