Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

From: tom (tom_at_dbsevice.com)
Date: 02/26/04 

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:28:09 +0100

Lew Pitcher wrote:
> tom wrote:
>
>> Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>> There is no difference in using unix sockets or 'normal' network
>> sockets...
>> In both cases you need to use a protocol, so I don't agree with you
>> that there is no 'network transparency' with UDS.
>
>
> Agreed that both Unix sockets and TCP/IP sockets share a number of
> 'layers' of API (specifically, some of the support, and most of the
> public API that goes into the "sockets" API).
>
> However, I don't agree that there is a "protocol" with Unix Sockets.
> They typically are implemented as simple, local-memory buffers that are
> written by one socket call, and read by another. OTOH, TCP/IP sockets
> /does/ have a multi-layered "protocol" that involves prepending control
> data, moving the data between various buffers, moving the data 'over the
> wire', and managing the data integrity (including fragments,
> acknowlegments, etc.).
>
> There is no 'protocol' per se in Unix sockets, and there is much less
> overhead with them as compared to TCP/IP sockets.
>
>

Misunderstanding... I thought about the X protocol and not TCP or IP.
The applications using the sockes have to define some rules/packets how
they communicated between each other.. I call this a protocol.. the X
protocol in this case... maybe I'm wrong here.
If you use any IPC, you have to have a sort of a 'protocol', even with
message queues or shared memory.. 

-- 
wereHamster a.k.a. Tom Carnecky   Emmen, Switzerland
(GC 3.1) GIT d+ s+: a--- C++ UL++ P L++ E- W++ N++ !o !K  w ?O ?M
           ?V PS PE ?Y PGP t ?5 X R- tv b+ ?DI D+ G++ e-- h! !r !y+

Relevant Pages