On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 09:06:32AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:19:49PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >> Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >> > How can you second that 100% and then talk about how people have to >> > change ther code to accomodate cygwin? >> I second 100% that it's best to find a solution that avoids the MS >> bug without requiring any change from Unix. >> Meanwhile nobody "has to" do anything as a result of including >> my proposal. >> I hope this discussion will generate better approaches. > >I think there's only one approach which would allow applications >to run without special Cygwin patches. When duplicating a socket, >Cygwin needs to know the parent-child relationship between the >sockets. When closing a socket, the DLL has to check, if there's >still a child socket left open. If so, the socket isn't closed >but moved into a "still-to-close" queue (like the delqueue) until >all child sockets are closed. The same for the application itself. >If exit() has been called, Cygwin has to keep the application in a >zombie-like state until the child sockets have been closed. > >The problem is that this requires a parent-child communication >which isn't implemented yet. This would be a job for the Cygwin >daemon. > >Does that invalidate Pierre's approach? I don't think so.
I don't see why a daemon is needed. There is already parent/child communication going on without the daemon. cgf
