Message-Id:	<200012271748.MAA04936@qnx.com>
Subject:	Re: Draft patch for opendir() extension
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 12:48:58 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Alain Magloire" <alain AT qnx DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1001227141200.10199B-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 27, 2000 02:13:11 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL0b1]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> 
> 
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Richard Dawe wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure how useful this would be for libsocket's sockets in general.
> > TCP/IP socket handles cannot be passed between DOS boxes, unfortunately.
> > OTOH libsocket's Unix domain sockets have a well-defined pathname ->
> > device name mapping, so maybe that would.
> > 
> > Both TCP/IP sockets and Unix domain sockets could be passed to child
> > programs (using some variant of the proxy method used to pass long
> > command-lines?), with some mechanism to resurrect libsocket's internal
> > data structures.
> 
> If sockets are private to programs that use them, then passing them 
> to child programs doesn't make much sense, does it?

Actually yes, this is well known model(Client/Server), the parent
handle the initial contact and handle the request to a child. The child
needs the file descriptor of the remote host connection.

Although it is use in network programming, sharing file descriptor between
parent and child is fundamental, at least in Unix.

-- 
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!

- Raw text -