Communication between Ada and Java through named pipes

Communication between Ada and Java through named pipes

[Mauro Riva]

I have two applications written in Ada and Java respectively and I want them
to communicate using named pipes but I don't know how to do it.
What I need is simply this : the Ada program has to put a text string into
the pipe and the Java program must read the text, and they must do it in a
non blocking way.
I'm using these programs under windows, does anyone know how to do it? Does
anyone have an example of code?

Thanks,
Mauro

Re: Communication between Ada and Java through named pipes

[Freejack]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:28:41 +0000, Mauro Riva wrote:

> I have two applications written in Ada and Java respectively and I want them
> to communicate using named pipes but I don't know how to do it.
> What I need is simply this : the Ada program has to put a text string into
> the pipe and the Java program must read the text, and they must do it in a
> non blocking way.
> I'm using these programs under windows, does anyone know how to do it? Does
> anyone have an example of code?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mauro

If you're using the GNAT compiler, look under section 8.5.2 of the GNAT
Reference Manual. That explains how to handle pipes. In fact, read the
whole section 8. Gives a lot of details on handling special files and
devices.

Freejack

Re: Communication between Ada and Java through named pipes

[Michael Paus]

Mauro Riva wrote:

> I have two applications written in Ada and Java respectively and I want them
> to communicate using named pipes but I don't know how to do it.

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?

> What I need is simply this : the Ada program has to put a text string into
> the pipe and the Java program must read the text, and they must do it in a
> non blocking way.
> I'm using these programs under windows, does anyone know how to do it? Does
> anyone have an example of code?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mauro
> 
> 

Re: Communication between Ada and Java through named pipes

[Adrien Plisson]

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

Re: Communication between Ada and Java through named pipes

[u_int32_t]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:43:48 +0100, Adrien Plisson wrote:

> i never used named pipes, but i used shared memory once to communicate 
> straight between VB and C++. ultra platform specific, but extremely 
> efficient...

I believe VB is ultra platform specific :)

Re: Communication between Ada and Java through named pipes

[Adrien Plisson]

u_int32_t wrote:
> I believe VB is ultra platform specific :)

VB is a fucking unconsistent anti-good-programming-practice language for 
fucking brainless pseudo-developper. unfortunately, my company hires a 
lot of those pricks and only believes in VB for GUI development. it 
gives people the feeling that they are programmers because they can 
place 2 buttons in a fucking window: they don't understand anything of 
what they do and don't even think a bit of software architecture.

the result is always the same: for each software we poorly design a 
one-shot GUI.

i __HATE__ vb.

-- 
rien

Re: Communication between Ada and Java through named pipes

[Brian May]

>>>>> "Adrien" == Adrien Plisson <aplisson-news@stochastique.net> writes:

    Adrien> simply because of efficiency ? tcp/ip protocols have some
    Adrien> overhead we can't always afford if we need high
    Adrien> throughput.

"Sockets" does not mean "TCP/IP".

You can also have Unix domain sockets, which I don't have the
overheads of TCP/IP. An example: X-Windows usually uses Unix domain
sockets for communications to/from client applications because it is
considered better (for local applications) then TCP/IP.

However, the poster didn't make it clear what he was referring to when
he said "sockets".
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>