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
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<029a01c1a63e$bc737170$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	"egor duda" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<002401c1a3f4$0b77e8c0$010310ac AT lyoncleitienne> <20020123120701 DOT A11608 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <8181418335 DOT 20020124161420 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20020124142156 DOT Y11608 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <4183271981 DOT 20020124164513 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20020124163840 DOT B11608 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20020124170147 DOT D11608 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <4192451650 DOT 20020124191813 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Subject:	Re: Descriptor passing between process
Date:	Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:54:51 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	26 Jan 2002 07:54:49.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[BAD0BDF0:01C1A63E]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "egor duda" <deo AT logos-m DOT ru>
To: "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: Descriptor passing between process


> Hi!
>
> Thursday, 24 January, 2002 Corinna Vinschen cygwin AT cygwin DOT com wrote:
>
> CV> It *could* be implemented.
>
> CV> First we would have to implement the control message passing at
all and
> CV> when it's available we could perhaps even implement descriptor
passing
> CV> using the DuplicateHandle() function.
>
> To call DuplicateHandle() you must have a process handle of the peer.
> i don't know how can we do it properly without cygwin daemon.


Egor, we can have the daemon when someone submits a critical review of
the implementation, with a summary of

"Completely broken"
"Good, but X should be done before merging to HEAD"
"Looks good, work in progress as everything is, but I'd be happy with it
in HEAD".

AFAICT Chris is looking for someone to actually read the code and say
what they think. If it's bad it tells me what to fix, if it's good, then
we get the daemon.

Rob


--
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/

- Raw text -