Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à col misc 
Sujet : Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?
De : Pancho.Jones (at) *nospam* proton.me (Pancho)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.misc
Date : 14. Dec 2024, 11:10:57
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vjjljh$3unfq$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 12/14/24 08:06, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
In article <lNycnZghasCXPtP6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> writes:
On 11/19/24 7:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 01:20:53 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
Hey, if I feel the need to use files instead of 'pipes' then I WANT TO
USE FILES INSTEAD OF PIPES.
>
Except ... you were trying to argue that there was no fundamental
difference between pipes and files anyway. That you could somehow do
everything you could do with pipes by using temporary files.
>
    Yep.
>
    But I *just may not WANT to*  :-)
>
    Files DO have a hidden advantage - many largely
    dis-related programs can ACCESS them. This can
    give you stats, insight, 'intelligence'. Pipes
    are basically restricted to the original parent
    and children. Good reasons for that, sometimes,
    but not *always*.
 Named pipes can allow communication between unrelated processes.
 Using files means there has to be locking or some coordination, so
that the receiver only reads the file when the contents are in a
consistent state.
I don't really know, but I would be surprised if that were always true.

Renaming a file (on the same filesystem, where it's
not a copy and delete) is atomic, so if the file is created in one
directory and moved to a parallel directory when complete, the
receiving program can just grab it from there, perhaps after being
signalled to wake up and scan the directory. That works somewhat
efficiently even without modern locking or filesystem change
notification mechanisms.
 
I suspect you are mixing up sensible programming techniques for handling file concurrency, with the way things need to be. i.e. I think it is perfectly possible to have concurrent programs read and write to the same file, it is just that there might be a few gotchas. Whereas renaming is a very safe and simple technique, avoiding many potential problems.

A file has the advantage that one can seek on it, which may simplify
some things; for example if a header has a checksum over the following
data, it's easier to seek back and fill that field in with its final
value. Otherwise one may have to use a temporary file internally anyway.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Nov 24 * Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?76186282@ud0s4.net
18 Nov 24 +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3D
20 Nov 24 i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2186282@ud0s4.net
20 Nov 24 i `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1D
18 Nov 24 +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Pancho
18 Nov 24 +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Richard Kettlewell
18 Nov 24 +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?48Rich
18 Nov 24 i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?47Phillip Frabott
20 Nov 24 i `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?46Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 Nov 24 i  `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?45Phillip Frabott
21 Nov 24 i   `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?44Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 Nov 24 i    `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?43Phillip Frabott
21 Nov 24 i     +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?20Richard Kettlewell
22 Nov 24 i     i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?19Phillip Frabott
22 Nov 24 i     i +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?17Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i     i i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?16vallor
22 Nov 24 i     i i +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?10Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i     i i i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?9vallor
22 Nov 24 i     i i i `* Named pipes vs. Unix sockets (was: Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?)8vallor
22 Nov 24 i     i i i  `* Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets7vallor
22 Nov 24 i     i i i   +- Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i     i i i   `* Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets5Phillip Frabott
22 Nov 24 i     i i i    +* Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 Nov 24 i     i i i    i`* Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets2Phillip Frabott
23 Nov 24 i     i i i    i `- Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Dec 24 i     i i i    `- Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i     i i `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Rich
23 Nov 24 i     i i  +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3vallor
23 Nov 24 i     i i  i+- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Rich
23 Nov 24 i     i i  i`- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
26 Nov 24 i     i i  `- Pipes v. FIFOs (was: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?)1Geoff Clare
22 Nov 24 i     i `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Richard Kettlewell
21 Nov 24 i     `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?22Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i      `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?21186282@ud0s4.net
22 Nov 24 i       `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?20Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 Nov 24 i        `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?19186282@ud0s4.net
23 Nov 24 i         `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?18Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 Nov 24 i          `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?17186282@ud0s4.net
23 Nov 24 i           +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?6Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 Nov 24 i           i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Carlos E.R.
23 Nov 24 i           i +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2Fritz Wuehler
24 Nov 24 i           i i`- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Carlos E.R.
24 Nov 24 i           i `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Nov 24 i           i  `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Carlos E.R.
23 Nov 24 i           `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?10The Natural Philosopher
23 Nov 24 i            `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?9Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Nov 24 i             `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?8186282@ud0s4.net
24 Nov 24 i              +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Nov 24 i              `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?6Rich
24 Nov 24 i               `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Lew Pitcher
24 Nov 24 i                +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Rich
24 Nov 24 i                `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3Richard Kettlewell
24 Nov 24 i                 +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Carlos E.R.
24 Nov 24 i                 `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Rich
20 Nov 24 `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?22Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Dec 24  `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?21186282@ud0s4.net
3 Dec 24   +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
4 Dec 24   i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2186282@ud0s4.net
4 Dec 24   i `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
14 Dec 24   `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?17Pancho
14 Dec 24    `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?16root
14 Dec 24     `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?15The Natural Philosopher
17 Dec14:34      `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?14Geoff Clare
18 Dec02:23       `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?13Lawrence D'Oliveiro
18 Dec05:25        `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?12186282@ud0s4.net
18 Dec06:01         `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?11Rich
18 Dec06:12          +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Robert Riches
18 Dec15:03          i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?4Rich
19 Dec05:27          i `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3Robert Riches
19 Dec15:07          i  `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2Rich
19 Dec16:02          i   `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1D
18 Dec09:27          `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Richard Kettlewell
18 Dec15:02           `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?4Rich
18 Dec17:11            `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3John Ames
18 Dec17:51             +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Rich
18 Dec19:32             `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Richard Kettlewell

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal