Timeline for Tag creation: [subprocess-management] or similar
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feb 19, 2014 at 17:28 | comment | added | rolfl | @ChrisW That may be true... that *NIXy argument is weak.... ;-) The point is that IPC and chid-processes are orthoganal. | |
Feb 19, 2014 at 17:26 | comment | added | ChrisW | @rolfl "IPC" is also used in Windows/MSDN documentation, e.g. here. | |
Feb 18, 2014 at 21:27 | history | edited | 200_success | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Marked as completed
|
Feb 18, 2014 at 21:20 | comment | added | rolfl | Second comment... IPC is also very *NIXy ... whereas child processes is common on all platforms.... | |
Feb 18, 2014 at 21:18 | comment | added | rolfl | I think IPC is both too broad, and perhaps too narrow. IPC is a lot more than running a child process. It is signals, shared memory segments, pipes, buffers, fifos, sockets, etc. IPC happens between processes, whether those processes are child processes, or completely unrelated. It is an orthogonal concept | |
Feb 18, 2014 at 19:15 | comment | added | ChrisW | @SimonAndréForsberg IPC isn't only used for coordinating child processes; more generally it includes memory-mapped files, sockets, named mutexes, etc. | |
Feb 18, 2014 at 19:04 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg | Very well then, perhaps it's just me that haven't heard about it before :) | |
Feb 18, 2014 at 19:02 | comment | added | jliv902 | I think IPC is a good tag. @SimonAndréForsberg: I just did a google search. It was the third result, so I think it would be easy for people to find. | |
Feb 18, 2014 at 9:06 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg | IPC is probably an abbreviation which not many people are used to. Therefore, I don't think it would be a good tag. Perhaps it can be labeled something else? | |
S Feb 18, 2014 at 6:46 | history | answered | 200_success | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
S Feb 18, 2014 at 6:46 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by 200_success |