Hi all
I'll clarify my question as i seem to have failed to make it clear.
My point is: Isn't it wrong to use the term unix sockets for local
domain sockets? This isn't a tecnical question or a failure to
understand what sockets are, what varieties exist and for what
purposes each can be used (and what goodies each type provides). It's
a failure to understand why the term unix sockets is used to
designate local domain sockets.
The point in using the tcp/udp example is that contrary to popular
designation, the sentence "doing tcp/udp is impossible with unix
sockets because unix sockets are local domain sockets" is false. Unix
sockets are the general class. While it's true that local domain
sokets do not use tcp/udp, it's false (and this is a conceptual stand
not an everyday unix jargon use) that unix sockets = local domain
sockets.
Hierarchy
UNIX SOCKET {
local domain
ipv4/6
etc
etc
}
And this is the view that i would like you to tell me is right or
wrong (i'm not standing by it, just asking what you consider it to be).
Thanks for reading
On 2006/11/29, at 20:57, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 05:17:09PM +0000, 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?
I don't really understand your question nor where did the concept of
doing tcp/udp without sockets originated.
Maybe you're misreading the term Unix sockets? Sockets can belong to
different protocol families: INET, INET6, UNIX/LOCAL, X25, etc..
Unix sockets means using sockets for local interprocess communication.
They don't use any network protocol.
man 7 unix
--
lfr
0/0
