Local named pipes are much faster than TCP sockets on NT because connections are not routed through the networking layer, but are directly by the kernel. On NT LANs, named pipes is the most efficient IPC mechanism; if you go over a slow link (eg., WAN) you're right -- TCP definitely rules. As for your #2, give me a clue as to why you'd want to run Zope on a Win9x box. When did Win9x become a server OS? Never mind the fact that the wrapper service that comes with Zope will not run on Win9x, and the executable CGI wrapper won't work without it. I'm almost done with the ISAPI port now. It is based on Brian Lloyd's code, which uses named pipes. -- Alexander Staubo http://www.mop.no/~alex/ "It has taken the planet Earth 4.5 billion years to discover it is 4.5 billion years old." --George Wald

-----Original Message----- From: zope-dev-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope-dev-admin@zope.org]On Behalf Of Brad Clements Sent: 28. mai 1999 22:50 To: zope-dev@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] The Zope CGI executable, rewriting URLs on IIS

On 27 May 99, at 9:30, Jeff Bauer wrote:

...

A caveat: PCGI on win32 is experimental and uses TCP/IP sockets (Unix version uses AF_UNIX IPC). A further refinement to the win32 version would probably use named pipes and require Mark Hammond's win32 extensions.

In my opinion, moving to named pipes from TCP will be a step backwards.

1. Named pipes are slower than TCP connections 2. Named pipes (server side) are only available on NT, so you'll rule out use on Win9X.

TCP/IP is the better way to go...

Brad Clements, bkc@murkworks.com (315)268-1000 http://www.murkworks.com (315)268-9812 Fax netmeeting: ils://ils.murkworks.com ICQ: 14856937

_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev

(For non-developer, user-level issues, use the companion list, zope@zope.org, http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )