Re: new subcategory "Node" & something about processes

Makes sense. Do you propose Node as category name ? If so i don't think it really reflects the idea of it. But i don't have any better idea. Anybody ? > Hi, > > (seems like nobody answered my net_socket post :/ let's try something new ;p) > Okay. I'm sure that pear will need a new subcategory for connection endpoints, > because there are quite a lot of it : > o Sockets > o System V message queues > o FIFO named pipes > ... > > In future Net_Socket can't be stored in Net anymore, because it could also > be possible then to create UNIX sockets with it (php's new socket extension). > Of course, this new kind of Node_Socket and Node_SysVMsg (or however) need > experimental extensions (sockets, sysvmsg) but I think that's ok. For me > it already works really fine. I tried to make some benchmark with > Sockets against SysVMsg but this pcntl_waitpid stuff didn't work. > Well, here is it without any useable result : > http://0x03.net/sources/MsgVsSocket.phps > (Process.phps and Node.phps are also stored in the same directory) > Sockets, message queues and the ipc stuff is in usage very similar > to other languages like c or c++. So it's great to translate the > code one-to-one into another language and link php to it. > That's it.. > > bye > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >