On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 10:01:35AM -0500, Karl Dahlke wrote:
> > 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.

Ok, I can't imagine chrome etc do things this way but I may well be wrong.
Additionally, I've seen programs like chrome and firefox spawning multiple
processes with the same name, presumably doing different things on Windows.
I wonder how that's managed and if we can do something similar?

> > 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?

Ok, I'd feel slightly better about this if there was a way to make the port
selection automatic rather than configured,
it feels like multi-user would break in exciting ways otherwise.

Cheers,
Adam.