Timeline for Can I use named pipes to achieve temporal uncoupling?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2024 at 15:46 | comment | added | Bodo |
@RamonSmits Just to add to the point "application1 will start writing to the pipe until the pipe buffer is full". When you stop application2, application1 can block again when the buffer gets full. If you reach this blocking or not, will depend on how fast application1 writes to the fifo and how long no applilcation2 will read from the fifo during the update. And it depends on your application if this (temporary) blocking is acceptable.
|
|
| Sep 27, 2024 at 10:09 | history | edited | Stéphane Chazelas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 27, 2024 at 9:19 | comment | added | Ramon Smits | yes, that works! | |
| Sep 27, 2024 at 9:19 | vote | accept | Ramon Smits | ||
| Sep 27, 2024 at 9:12 | comment | added | Ramon Smits |
This seems very interesting. I just got it to work like ``` exec 3<>/tmp/mypipe application1 >/tmp/mypipe exec 3>&- ``` But I don't know what I'm doing here and if this is correct. Your solution would likely look like: application 1<>/tmp/mypipe Let me try that!
|
|
| Sep 27, 2024 at 9:03 | history | edited | Stéphane Chazelas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 744 characters in body
|
| Sep 27, 2024 at 8:55 | history | answered | Stéphane Chazelas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |