Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:06:24 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: access port 127.0.0.1:1052 (cygserver question) Message-ID: <20020704120624.P21857@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20020704052424 DOT GA15450 AT redhat DOT com> <00e601c2232d$a7c5be10$2300a8c0 AT LAPTOP> <010001c2233f$75231360$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <20020704115207 DOT O21857 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <013801c22341$e3722430$6132bc3e AT BABEL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <013801c22341$e3722430$6132bc3e@BABEL> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 11:02:20AM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote: > "Corinna Vinschen" wrote: > > AFAIK, they disappear after they have been closed by all apps. > > I'm wondering if we should create these unix domain socket files > > with the appropriate FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE flag. This would > > require to rearrange Egor's socket code to use CreateFile() instead > > of _open()... > > Couldn't that code just immediately unlink the file and let the cygwin > pending delete system handle it? Isn't that just going out of the way of rewriting some code in a better way? Just calling unlink() is somewhat ugly, isn't it? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc.