From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,860efd11d835e2ae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsgate.cistron.nl!skynet.be!newspost001!tjb!not-for-mail Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:43:48 +0100 From: Adrien Plisson Reply-To: aplisson-news@stochastique.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: fr-be, fr, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Communication between Ada and Java through named pipes References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <41c5af48$0$25070$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =- NNTP-Posting-Host: eca1b909.news.skynet.be X-Trace: 1103474504 news.skynet.be 25070 217.136.170.78:11917 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@skynet.be Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7077 Date: 2004-12-19T17:43:48+01:00 List-Id: Michael Paus wrote: > If you do not have the strict requirement to use named pipes I would > switch to > sockets. That is much better documented, more general, more flexible and is > known to work with Ada and Java on almost any platform you can think of. > Why would you want to go through the pain getting ancient named pipes to > work? simply because of efficiency ? tcp/ip protocols have some overhead we can't always afford if we need high throughput. i never used named pipes, but i used shared memory once to communicate straight between VB and C++. ultra platform specific, but extremely efficient... -- rien