WIP audio in server

[Tim Cross]

Yes, domain sockets are usually the default and are easier, with less
issues and in many respects more security. However, we also need to
recognise that depending on your client, they can be harder - for example,
some languages, support for TCP/UDP sockets is better than support for
Domain sockets. This tends to be particularly so for any language which
either aims to be cross platform or which is based on some universal
virtual machine. Java and some of the java derived languages are probably a
good example. With these, it is almost trivial to make a TCP/UDP socket,
but domain sockets are much harder and usually require additional libraries.

On 14 February 2016 at 13:48, Chris Brannon <chris at the-brannons.com> wrote:

> Tim Cross <theophilusx at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > having played with writing a few speechd clients, I'm very glad I
> > don't have to worry about how to actually use/play the audio.
>
> Plus one, brother.  I'm a lazy programmer.  If I want to make my
> application talk, I probably don't want to have to handle the audio I/O
> on my own.
>
> > The sockets v pipes question is an interesting one
> *snip*
> > From a security perspective, pipes are probably a better
> > choice.
>
> Well, the default these days is to use Unix-domain sockets.  They're
> just files in the filesystem.  Access control is protected by standard
> filesystem permissions, which are well-understood.
> It's about as secure as pipes.
> You have to jump through some hoops to use actual Internet sockets with
> a recent Speech Dispatcher.
>
> -- Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speechd mailing list
> Speechd at lists.freebsoft.org
> http://lists.freebsoft.org/mailman/listinfo/speechd
>



-- 
regards,

Tim

--
Tim Cross
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.freebsoft.org/pipermail/speechd/attachments/20160214/832e7be2/attachment.html>