Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:13:11 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Draft patch for opendir() extension
In-Reply-To: <3A49E1D5.B6984074@bigfoot.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001227141200.10199B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


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?