Regular pipe vs. Named Pipe

[Geoff Clare]

brnstnd at kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>Basically, pipes work the same way everywhere, and named pipes don't.
>The name part of named pipes is their least portable aspect. Never use
>them in a long-lived program if you can use any other communications
>mechanism.

Apart from the fact that Dan obviously didn't mean what he wrote here
("any other communications mechanism" would include a mechanism specific
to one system, and therefore totally non-portable), I think he is doing
named pipes an injustice.  I would say that named pipes are the most
portable inter-process communications mechanism after plain files and
unnamed pipes.  They are certainly more portable than message queues or
shared memory.
-- 
Geoff Clare <gwc at root.co.uk>  (Dumb American mailers: ...!uunet!root.co.uk!gwc)
UniSoft Limited, London, England.   Tel: +44 71 729 3773   Fax: +44 71 729 3273