> >> Anyways, I would prefer to stick with TCP/UDP, because this is
> >> what my
> >> programs use already, and I don't really want to change
> >> everything to
> >> Unix sockets (unless of course Unix sockets are the only good way to
> >> resolve my problems).
>
> I don't want to go off-topic but i have an important question. Isn't
> a socket a concept that translates an address and port? How would
> someone go about doing tcp/udp without sockets when they both depend
> on address/port mappings which are _literally_ sockets?
>
> Am i wrong?
I think that you misunderstood.
By "Unix sockets", he was referring to using Unix-domain sockets
(AF_LOCAL) rather than TCP/IP sockets (AF_INET).
Unix-domain sockets have the advantage that you can obtain the
identity (PID, UID, GID) of the peer from the OS.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn (at) gclements.plus (dot) com [email concealed]>
Filipe Varela wrote:
> >> Anyways, I would prefer to stick with TCP/UDP, because this is
> >> what my
> >> programs use already, and I don't really want to change
> >> everything to
> >> Unix sockets (unless of course Unix sockets are the only good way to
> >> resolve my problems).
>
> I don't want to go off-topic but i have an important question. Isn't
> a socket a concept that translates an address and port? How would
> someone go about doing tcp/udp without sockets when they both depend
> on address/port mappings which are _literally_ sockets?
>
> Am i wrong?
I think that you misunderstood.
By "Unix sockets", he was referring to using Unix-domain sockets
(AF_LOCAL) rather than TCP/IP sockets (AF_INET).
Unix-domain sockets have the advantage that you can obtain the
identity (PID, UID, GID) of the peer from the OS.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn (at) gclements.plus (dot) com [email concealed]>
[ reply ]