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 10:57:46 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: CYGWIN SERVER: Some questions
Message-ID: <20010903105746.B2024@redhat.com>
Reply-To: 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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010903140332.C23714@cygbert.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

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.

cgf