From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:40]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D50B5791EB for ; Fri, 1 Jan 2016 07:01:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.107]) by resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 0f1U1s0092Ka2Q501f1c9L; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:01:36 +0000 Received: from eklhad ([IPv6:2601:405:4001:e487:21e:4fff:fec2:a0f1]) by resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 0f1b1s00A2MDcd701f1bif; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:01:35 +0000 To: Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com, ubuntu@geoffair.info From: Karl Dahlke Reply-to: Karl Dahlke References: <20151130125742.eklhad@comcast.net> <20160101142238.GB24842@122oven.adamthompson.me.uk> User-Agent: edbrowse/3.6.0+ Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:01:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20160001100135.eklhad@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1451660496; bh=ouI/JHbZ1sq7gMYDs+g7MYjSaLaRBkmErhaIgasl61A=; h=Received:Received:To:From:Reply-to:Subject:Date:Message-ID: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=fTaGIO6RMZHpSJJVNj2B6mkBTyWVC0D38nX8vAlV7ry3Ft6jKfwaANLCmL6AbHGWr lSYuJ2NrN2qCrrCCZfHS4XQ23W5b2GhchQNFX0AlzWnuYzbvpilzqjzcbQPSToOTHB bsg6DNAoaSegCG9W0uo/oMEMLPXD8ft2wAM+q2gGc/H0/feIT+gkURce+iR21dIcJv dfw+/3vwNvCuPtPOzL8EvbN6+ACUO/6byGHHGhNkKnGiMj/MLMHhqTEmXNfOw+UTyP tRwVdQAPEpX5034WA4CzJMcF8O5RWEGrlDrRxrSuom3On8kZEJFnU5s4QVWrDj+w1D ijKPpR/Dxg09Q== Subject: [Edbrowse-dev] Ports X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Edbrowse Development List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:01:06 -0000 > I seem to remember Windows had something like domain sockets or > at least some other method of IPC which doesn't involve network ports. I really don't know. I thought Geoff said traditional sockets were the best, perhaps only practical form of IPC besides pipes, but don't want to put words in his mouth so will cc to him. > I'm not particularly comfortable with ports tbh. > I suspect whatever we do will have to have some differences between Unix and > windows. Connecting using traditional sockets on network ports, all through loopback, really doesn't bother me at all, if ports can be reconfigured in .ebrc - well, doesn't bother me as much as having different systems on the two OSs. If this is the best / only way for windows, or even a practical way on windows, then let's just do it across the board. We've already confirmed my socket layer works portably across both - would probably be easy to add in udp capability if needed. but I'm sure Geoff knows more than I do here. Other practical/flexible IPC on Windows? Or any issues with loopback sockets in network ports? Karl Dahlke