socket
in [Unix Programming]
|
Prev: IPC based on name pipe FIFO and transaction log file
Next: Learn about proxy sites and how to use them to open blocked sites unlimited downloads from RapidShare and megaupload and increase the speed of the Internet with new sites for free
From: Rick Jones on 2 Apr 2010 18:14 Bill Cunningham <nospam(a)nspam.invalid> wrote: > I just bought one by Kochans. Is it any good? I don't know. Unless I've lost some bits in my memory I've not come across that one before. rick jones -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
From: Bill Cunningham on 3 Apr 2010 17:00 "Rick Jones" <rick.jones2(a)hp.com> wrote in message news:hp5l98$vtc$2(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com... > As already mentioned, the third argument to socket() is not a port > number. The third argument is a specification of a *transport* > protocol - eg TCP, UDP, etc. Ok While I am waiting for my book I thought I would ask about connect() which is as I understand the next step after socket. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/connect.html The first argument to connect is simple. The pointer to addr of type struct is not so simple to me. Am I going to have to declare a type like thus, struct sockadrr sock; And use things like sa_family_t family *fptr; connect (smtp,family->fptr,sizeof(family)); ?? I really feel I am showing my ignorance here. Here is the page I am looking at. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/basedefs/sys/socket.h.html Bill
From: Bill Cunningham on 3 Apr 2010 17:04 "Bill Cunningham" <nospam(a)nspam.invalid> wrote in message news:4bb79e40$0$12438 > The first argument to connect is simple. The pointer to addr of type > struct is not so simple to me. Am I going to have to declare a type like > thus, > > struct sockadrr sock; > Oops. I mean connect(smtp,family.sock,... I just don't know. I have been studing these pages. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/basedefs/sys/socket.h.html http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/connect.html http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/xsh_chap02_10.html Bill
From: Barry Margolin on 4 Apr 2010 01:25 In article <4bb647c2$0$12432$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, "Bill Cunningham" <nospam(a)nspam.invalid> wrote: > "Rick Jones" <rick.jones2(a)hp.com> wrote in message > news:hp5ejk$sm3$3(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com... > > > Do definitely get either Unix Network Programming or some similar > > work. It will be invaluable. > > I'm just afraid that it will talk only about AF_UNIX and not get into > internet networking. I understand there is a differenct in unix socket used > internally by the machine and internet communication. > > Bill Why would a book on network programming concentrate on AF_UNIX sockets? They're only useful for inter-process communication, not networking. I think there's some mention of them in the book, because they use the same API, but 90% of it is about network programming. -- Barry Margolin, barmar(a)alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
From: Rainer Weikusat on 6 Apr 2010 11:06
Ian Collins <ian-news(a)hotmail.com> writes: > On 04/ 3/10 10:03 AM, Rainer Weikusat wrote: >> scott(a)slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>> Rainer Weikusat<rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> writes: >>>> Doug McIntyre<merlyn(a)geeks.org> writes: >>>>> "Bill Cunningham"<nospam(a)nspam.invalid> writes: >>>>>> "Rick Jones"<rick.jones2(a)hp.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Do definitely get either Unix Network Programming or some similar >>>>>>> work. It will be invaluable. >>>>> >>>>>> I'm just afraid that it will talk only about AF_UNIX and not get into >>>>>> internet networking. I understand there is a differenct in unix socket used >>>>>> internally by the machine and internet communication. >>>>> >>>>> There's very little use of AF_UNIX compared to AF_INET in the real >>>>> world, >>>> >>>> PF_UNIX sockets are the preferable method for IPC on a single >>>> system. Also, the socket API itself is not tied to either protocol or >>>> address families. >>> >>> preferable by whom? >> >> People who understand IPC. > > Certainly not those who use Solaris. Just because I am convinced that I am right doesn't necessarily mean I actually am. But in absence of any factual statements about the topic, I additionally claim that "people who use Solaris and don't use AF_UNIX sockets for local IPC" will usually be people "who don't understand IPC" (additionally qualified as 'local IPC among otherwise unrelated processes') and that 'use of RPC' is a sure sign of a confused mind :->. |