[fpc-devel] Inconsistent use of Timeout in SimpleIPC

Michael Van Canneyt michael at freepascal.org
Mon Dec 7 20:56:20 CET 2015

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:

> On 07.12.2015 20:00, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote:
>>> On 6 December 2015 at 08:29, Ondrej Pokorny <lazarus at kluug.net> wrote:
>>>> If you don't persist in using SimpleIPC, there is also AdvancedIPC that 
>>>> uses
>>>> the same approach (temporary files) across all targets and so it behaves
>>>> consistently.
>>> I think SimpleIPC and AdvancedIPC complement each other. SimpleIPC
>>> uses native IPC mechanisms, while AdvancedIPC uses a generic (file
>>> based) mechanism. Both have advantages and disadvantages, so it's
>>> great to have both available.
>> +1
> Interesting point! From this point-of-view I don't have to create the 
> connection layer between SimpleIPC and AdvancedIPC as me&you suggested here: 
> http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/2015-September/035958.html
> It makes sense.

Well, my initial enthousiasm cooled somewhat when I understood that you are using a file-based approach.

if the current simpleipc implementation can be fixed, then I think that is to be preferred above 
re-implementing it on top of advancedipc, because I am not very comfortable with the files approach.

The only thing that remains to be fixed in simpleipc is the multiple clients to server on unix. 
It needs a semaphore to be able to function correctly.

The file-based approach is still a valid approach, since it offers other things:
- the possibility of sending a message  to a non-running server 
- receiving a response.
But for simple one-way traffic, I think simpleipc is to be preferred...

But you are right that you should not put any more effort in emulating simpleipc, I think it would be wasted effort.


More information about the fpc-devel mailing list