From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200205040914.KAA14145@localhost.localdomain>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Cc: steve@localhost.localdomain
Subject: Re: [9fans] bidirectional pipes
In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Haertel <mike@ducky.net>
   of "Thu, 02 May 2002 14:35:41 PDT." <200205022135.g42LZfXB014631@ducky.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat,  4 May 2002 10:14:04 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 87f8647a-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> >While this is cool, I have to admit that I never really liked
> >bidirectional pipes, because if you want to close half of the connection,
> >you either need something like bsd's shutdown(), or a way to recover
> >your control file which hopefully will let you half-close.
>
> I'm curious?  Why does this bother you?  Just let half the connection
> go unused.

Whereas my general dislike isn't so much from the bidirectional aspect
of the pipes, as from the increase in TCP complexity which, as far as I
can tell, doesn't exist for anything other than "rsh host filter". I'd
have expected the simpler protocol would be worth the effort of just
using two streams, in that particular case. I don't care whether the
streams are bi-directional, just that one can be discarded before the other.

steve