www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Date: | Mon, 3 Jun 2002 18:19:41 -0400 (EDT) |
From: | David E Euresti <davie AT MIT DOT EDU> |
To: | <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
Subject: | Re: Duplicating Unix Domain Sockets |
Message-ID: | <Pine.GSO.4.30L.0206031815540.17867-100000@department-of-alchemy.mit.edu> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
I'm not so sure that it'll make it that much slower. I mean we are talking of adding only a couple of bytes to every send Unix Domain sockets. And Unix domain sockets never go outside the computer. Obviously it'll hurt if your program usually sends small packets, but you'll gain in being able to pass file descriptors through there. But I would like to hear what the original developer has to say. David -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |