Good morning everyone,
This thread was a month ago, but I just thought I should follow up in
case someone else runs into this later and has the same question.
I was able to work around this with no real problem by just spawning
off a new process and letting the parent die. I for some reas
On 3/22/2012 8:56 AM, Mysterious Mose wrote:
>
> I just want a plain named pipe as a file on the web server. I will
> write information to the pipe, and when a web browser accesses the
> pipe, it will read the information. Simple, right? But whenever I try
> to access the pipe through the web,
Good morning Tom,
Thank you for your response! It's too bad things aren't as simple as I
think they should be. :-)
I do understand how named pipes work in general on Unix, how you must
have a reader and a writer for anything to happen.
If I create a named pipe and have no writer proc
Good morning Nick!
Funny enough, you were the one who responded to the November 2009
thread that I saw earlier.
How I'm trying to access it is just through a regular HTTP GET, like
it was any other file. I feel like named pipes behave like regular
files for the most part when you're in th
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Mysterious Mose
wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> […]
>
> Why is this so difficult, and why aren't more people interested in
> doing this? It seems like such a simple thing to do. If I create a
> named pipe and write data to it, cat can get the data out, along with
> m
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:56:56 -0700
"Mysterious Mose" wrote:
> I just want a plain named pipe as a file on the web server.
How are you trying to access it? A named pipe isn't a regular
file, and can't in general be treated as such.
Not having tried it with apache, I don't know what to expe
Good morning,
OK, I feel like an idiot, because this seems to me like a
straightforward thing, but not only can I not get it to work, I can't
seem to even find information about it. When I search for "apache" and
"named pipe" or "fifo" I keep getting tons of information about making
the logs p
