Liste des Groupes | Revenir à co vms |
I would claim that what I did is NOT passing a descriptor, or whatever, to another process. Not really sure what that means. All I passed was the device name, and let the second process assign a channel to the "existing" device (socket).As Dave has mentioned, setting SO_SHARE on a socket would be another way>
to accomplish this.
Neither of these sounds the same as descriptor passing over Unix
domain sockets on Unix/Linux; the auxiliary server sounds more
like `inetd`, in that there's some service that's listening and
accepting connections on some TCP/IP port, and then creating a
server to handle each incoming connection.
SO_SHARE is different again; it appears that the shared socketI don't know why you would say that. A process must exist before it can do anything, but, a socket can exist in a process, and then connected to in another process, regardless of when the second process is created. For example, if a bank of worker processes exist, and a task comes in, the connection socket could be opened by the existing selected worker process.
must be created before the subprocesses that use it are created.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.