Comments by chrispdraycott (Top 2 by date)

chrispdraycott 25-Jun-20 5:02am View

Thank you for your suggestions.

Yes I have looked at a value at the beginning of shared memory for indicating whether one process is writing to memory but then you get into how do you wait for access and ensure you get access correctly. If one process is updating shared memory every second for example it will be keeping the value active quite often and so you would need to be polling/checking the value in the other process at a high frequency to ensure you get in there to change it. It might be possible but not ideal.
I am surprised that its not been thought about in the linux world. Wouldnt be a problem on windows which is no surprise!! Surely there must be a requirement for low level applications written in c/c++ that need to communicate with high level applications built in .NET.

The reason I want to go Shared memory is for speed. I dont want to be using sockets or passing data to and from applications. So dont want too heavy-weight.

Thanks.

chrispdraycott 25-Jun-20 4:56am View

If you think .NET 5 has restrictions not yet implemented then I am happy to explore .NET Core 3.1 as well.
Not quite sure what you mean by a bridge but in the C world I can have a named shared mutex in shared memory but I dont know how access that as a syncronization mechanism in .NET.