The named pipes stuff we have is for local ipc only. It is possible we
could extend the work to support network pipes but as that would be windows
only it would require a commercial justification to divert me from other
work. Send me a message if you want to pursue that.
nng does allow one to bind to a system selected random port. This is done
by specifying port 0. You can then use socket options to query to determine
which port was chosen for you. This works today in nng. Legacy nanomsg
cannot do it.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:53 AM Sierwald, Jörn <Joern.Sierwald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Good afternoon,
I need to replace an ancient CORBA layer in a somewhat large system. I
have come across nng.
It’s certainly new, but I’m willing to give it a chance after reading
win_iocp.c.
All objects/processes will run on computers on windows, on the same ipv6
LAN segment.
My questions are:
1) is it possible to run the ipc transport between windows computers? I
have read that the
implementation uses named pipes, which, in theory, would be LAN-capable.
The ability to
have long names in URIs is helpful in my case.
2) I would also be willing to use tcp, using the name resolution built
into windows (pnrp).
I came across a discussion about binding to random ports in the email list
archive, that didn’t
seem to go anywhere, but I assume I could add that to the sources myself.
Does anybody
see some immediate problem here that I do not see?
3) If you have random thoughts about replacing CORBA, I’ll listen to those
as well.
If you have never heard about prnp, you can publish a sockaddr_in6 and
some extra blob under
an arbitrary name. It cannot run on ipv4, so It’s a bit useless in the
internet, but reliable in a LAN.
Cheers,
Jörn Sierwald
