On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 02:08:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I'm pretty sure that's a bug; standard pipes shouldn't be > bidirectional. Roland, what do you think?
In SVR4, they behave this way (acording to Stevens, who alos calls them stream pipes). > > What I was asking about is the interface between A and T. > > Ok, so what exactly *is* between A and T, if it's not a pipe? > It's the canonical file interface. I mean, T is a translator on a node, A opens the node with O_RDWR and starts to write to it and read from it. Now when it has nothing more to write, I would like to signal the translator about it, so it can close its pipe to the program P and let A read out the remaining stuff. It is not a pipe in the sense that it doesn't use the pflocal server or uses any of the "pipe"ly stuff. But the translator advertises that it is a pipe/fifo in the stat flags, and the above usage of the "file" is pretty much how you use a bidirectional pipe (one filedescriptor, two directions). So, I guess my question is how you would signal the ther end of a bidrectional pipe (or a streamed pipe) of the shutdown of one direction, and because of the close resemblance between stream pipes and socket pairs, shutdown seems to be the correct answer. But I repeat that I am still talking about the direct communication between A and T via the active translator in the filesystem. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
