[PD] Choices of IPC when using fast-forward

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 3/17/22 08:58, cyrille henry wrote:
> 
>> Notable limitations:
>> 1. Every process needs to know/use the same size for shmem ID's.
> is that a real limitation?
> Do you have a practicable example where one need to share memory of 
> different size?

i don't think this is the problem that chuck is referring to.
afaiu, it's rather that the two processes need to have a priori 
knowledge of two different "thingies" in order to share some memory 
(without bad surprises): the ID and the size.

from a UX pov the question is, why it's not possible to only have to 
share a single "thingy" (the ID) and have the others be shared implicitly.

fmgdsaf
IOhannes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20220317/5f16300b/attachment.sig>