On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:04:26AM -0400, Lev Bishop wrote:
> On 6/7/07, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:49:50PM +0800, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> >But when talking about communicating with other applications, we need to
>> >use windows interfaces when the linux API doesn't permit it, shouldn't
>> >we?
>>
>> Only if you can clearly communicate why the linux API doesn't work. I'm
>> not convinced that this is not just a misconception on your part.
>
> Or to put it another way -- cygwin is rather careful when it comes to
> pipes to make sure that all of these uses work correctly and
> interoperate with with windows:
>
> C:\>dir | less
> C:\>ls | less
> C:\>dir | \windows\system32\more.com
> C:\>ls | \windows\system32\more.com
> $ cmd /c dir | les
> $ ls | less
> $ cmd /c dir | /cygdrive/c/windows/system32/more.com
> $ cmd /c dir | /cygdrive/c/windows/system32/more.com
>
> (ie all 8 combinations of pipe-created-by:{win,cygwin},
> source:{win,cygwin}, sink:{win,cygwin} )
>
> So, the big question is: what does brltty do with pipes that is
> different to the above?
I'm ass*u*me*ing that brltty is using named pipes where it might
have used fifos on linux. Cygwin's fifo implementation is not
extremely robust so I could imagine some problems there.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
