...

...

I would URGE you to make this exclusively a Boost.ASIO implementation.

I also agree, an ASIO implementation is the way to go with this.

...

3. There seemed to be some confusion regarding named pipes on POSIX.

...

The only difference between Windows and POSIX named pipes is that the former use the NT kernel namespace, within which the filing systems are mount points, whereas the latter use the filing system namespace directly. In my own code, I use a magic directory in /tmp as the namespace for all my named pipes in the system in an attempt to replicate a similar behavior to Windows, but there are many other ways of doing the same thing.

Hmmm, I see what you're saying and I agree with it, but I'm also not sure that it's strictly true that this is the "only" difference.

also a +1 to using POSIX pipes instead of domain sockets. I don't think you'd need to copy Niall's /tmp/ magic directory or if so make that an option.

...

Also, FYI, I'm doing this project as an independent study through my CS program. I'm getting close to the end of the quarter and I need to have something concrete to show for my efforts. Since I've already started down the path of implementing this not inside of Boost.ASIO, for the purposes of my school project I'm going to continue with that. However, I plan to continue working on it after the scholastic bit is finished, and then I would be interested in implementing it as part of ASIO.

That's pretty cool as a CS project. I hope you get a good grade. I've done far too much with Windows pipes and would definitely like to see an ASIO interface if not just to replace what I'm doing now. -John V