[nanomsg] Re: Status of Windows IPC ?
- From: Timothee Besset <ttimo@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 09:11:24 -0500
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:
