Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:42:51 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: CYGWIN SERVER: Some questions
Message-ID:	<20010903174251.E30211@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygdev <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20010903140332 DOT C23714 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010903105746 DOT B2024 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<20010903105746.B2024@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:57:46AM -0400

On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:57:46AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 02:03:32PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >========================================================================
> >     FOOD FOR DISCUSSION  FOOD FOR DISCUSSION  FOOD FOR DISCUSSION  
> >========================================================================
> >
> >I have some questions about our "Cygwin server project" which is
> >about to start as soon as we have discussed how to implement
> >the client/server protocol and how to manage differences between
> >NT and 9x based OSes.
> >
> >The most important question IMO is, how do we design the communication
> >protocol? It should combine all qualities which can't live together in
> >reality but only on marketing papers:
> >
> >1. Platform independent (from a Wincentric point of view, 9x/NT)
> >2. Fast
> >3. Reliable
> >4. Secure
> >5. Easy to use
> >6. Expandable
> >
> >What did we found to date? We already discussed the transport layer
> >back in June but we have no result so far. Possible transport layers
> >are:
> >
> >- Sockets (Pro: Platform independent, Easy to use, Con: Secure)
> >- Shared memory (Pro: Platform independent, Fast, Con: Secure)
> >- Named pipes (Pro: Secure, Con: Platform independent)
> >- DDE (Pro: Platform independent, Secure, Con: Easy to use???)
> >- RPC (Pro: Platform independent, Secure, Con: Easy to use???)
> >- COM (Pro: Platform independent, Con: Easy to use???)
> 
> How about mailboxes as the communication mechanism?  They share many
> of the characteristics of named pipes, I believe but *I think* they
> work on Windows 95.

I'm not quite sure about the seriousness of this mail but if you
refer to mailslots... they are just a one-way mechanism to push
some data to another process. No real `communication' at all.

On W95 we could use a plenty of methods, too. Just named pipes are
not implemented. Sockets, Shared memory, DDE, RPC, COM are all
available.

I know, you hate W95. Me either.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

- Raw text -