Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: chrisq <syseng@gfsys.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Upcoming time boundary events
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 23:39:23 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <10253er$3n87$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100fp4v$1nmtf$1@dont-email.me> <100omli$3t023$1@dont-email.me>
 <100qdop$6q13$1@dont-email.me> <100qg5t$3jb0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1014ad8$2jurh$1@dont-email.me> <m9pqvoFnrcsU1@mid.individual.net>
 <874ix3np14.fsf@atr2.ath.cx> <m9sc6fFnrcsU2@mid.individual.net>
 <mn.f24a7e95dd606c32.104627@invalid.skynet.be>
 <101dc6r$mkpm$12@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 00:39:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65ab5f4269458427c93f2b0df7d457df";
	logging-data="122119"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181GHzBCH/i5H4AW4Qsjr4Q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VKNEWH1TZ+B4Cvj/4c+bk1Yo7Sc=
In-Reply-To: <101dc6r$mkpm$12@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/30/25 23:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:46:27 +0200, Marc Van Dyck wrote:
> 
>> Well, is anyone else proposing a suitable replacement for FAL and
>> transparent task to task communication ?
> 
> The irony of it, that the DEC concept requires creating a separate server
> process for every client connection, while the standard *nix sockets API
> lets a single server process handle multiple connections (or fork off
> separate processes to spread the load, as it chooses).
> 
> I say “irony” because, of course, creation of all these extra processes
> willy-nilly is expensive on VMS (and on its Windows NT successor), while
> it is much cheaper on *nix systems.

That's complicated in unix by the fact of multiple 'known' port
numbers for eg: ssh, telnet, nfs.etc. inetd looks at the port number
then spawns off the relevant process, depending on the port number.
Simple, neat and elegant, one of the good ideas from unix 4.3, back
in the 1980's. rBeing rplaced by xinetd, for better security.


Chris