[fpc-pascal] Inter-process communication, a cautionary tale

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

waldo kitty wrote:

>>> FWIW: DOS does have and has had pipes... otherwise things like DIR | 
>>> MORE
>>> would not work... maybe you mean named pipes? ;)
>>
>> Yes, I do. And I'm obviously aware that there are plenty of addons 
>> that graft
>> named pipes (and mailslots etc.) onto DOS.
> 
> i never used any of that... didn't need to AFAIK... just regular pipes 
> worked fine for the times i needed them but yes, they a much different 
> animals than named pipes...

I used mailslots in a DOS (VB for DOS?) program, they're the API that 
underlies MS-style networking's NET SEND command.

>> However I always think of named
>> pipes, threads etc. as being primarily OS/2 v1 innovations, although 
>> some might
>> have been introduced by the obscure Microsoft OS usually referred to as
>> "European MS-DOS v4.0".
> 
> for some reason i was thinking that unix and xenix had named pipes back 
> then... either way, i'm out and apologize for the diversion ;)

If you were using the very early MS networking for unix (mentioned in 
the Samba entry on Wp IIRC, but I think I've also got other references) 
then they probably had both.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]