On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 22:23:04 -0500 (EST), Kevin M Bealer
<kmb203@psu.edu> said:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, David ``Joel Katz'' Schwartz wrote:
>> Yes, that does work. But without the 256 fds per process fix, I'm
>> still pretty much screwed. :(
> If you were willing to deal with slower access and writing some kludge code
> yourself, could you 'encapsulate' the file commands such that they would be
> 'virtual' file descriptors? What I mean is, when one needs to open, it
> calls a vfopen(), vfread(), etc instead of an fopen(), fread()... vfopen()
> could close a file and open the other one, and vfread() would remember file
> positions and reopen and seek to the correct position as necessary,
> etc.
No use --- the main reason (or one of them) for having loads of fds is
to support many simultaneous network connections on server processes,
and you simply can't close those and reopen them arbitrarily.
Cheers,
Stephen.
-- Stephen Tweedie <sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk> Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, Scotland.