Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Keith Windsor <keith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on
> Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:39:10 -0400
> <47277c7c$0$26469$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> It would be better to simply send the 'object' across and
>> automatically remap the address space of the object across the two
>> scripts without having to copy the data.
>
> Gosh, how "innovative"! The Amiga was doing that, albeit not at the
> shell level, back in the mid-80's! :-)
AmgiaDOS had access to shared objects through both Workbench and the
console via ARexx, provided that the supporting application had the
necessary Arexx port and allowed such object access internally (as many
did). Of course there were other mechanisms too, such as the
multifarious handlers in SYS:L.
>> This would be especially useful if the second script that accepts
>> this object as an input parameter did very little with the object
>> then say... see if the collection is empty or not.
There should be no restrictions on what can or cannot be done with
shared resources, provided the correct locking mechanisms are used,
and the right security contexts.
> In which case one might simply pass a count instead.
Indeed.
Both pipes and shm are useful in different circumstances, in particular
shm is of little use WRT network resources, virtualisation, sandboxing,
printing, or frankly anything other than in-place operations that
typically preclude backup objects.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
14:34:15 up 83 days, 14:29, 2 users, load average: 0.02, 0.16, 0.16
|
|
