🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: fouts@bozeman.bozeman.ingr (Martin Fouts)


>>>>> On 4 Oct 90 20:39:37 GMT, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) said:

Chip> According to fouts@bozeman.bozeman.ingr (Martin Fouts):
>One reason to not treat every IPC facility as part of the file system:
>Shared memory IPC mechanisms which don't need to be visible to processes
>not participating in the IPC.

Chip> Yes, it is obviously desirable to have IPC entities without names.
Chip> This feature is a simple extension of the present ability to keep a
Chip> plain file open after its link count falls to zero.  Of course, the
Chip> committee could botch the job by making it an error to completely
Chip> unlink a live IPC.
Chip> -- 

Of course, if I have to acquire a file handle for my IPC, I can't
imlement it as efficiently as if I just do it locally in shared memory
and don't bother the system about it's existance.

Marty
--
Martin Fouts

 UUCP:  ...!pyramid!garth!fouts (or) uunet!ingr!apd!fouts
 ARPA:  apd!fouts@ingr.com
PHONE:  (415) 852-2310            FAX:  (415) 856-9224
 MAIL:  2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94303

Moving to Montana;  Goin' to be a Dental Floss Tycoon.
  -  Frank Zappa


Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 205