From: knutaf@... Date: 2009-06-10T23:50:06+09:00 Subject: Re: inheriting socket in child process on Windows On Jun 10, 7:41 am, Robert Klemme wrote: > 2009/6/10  : > > > True, I did realize after I posted that perhaps my way isn't the "most > > obvious." In any case, I'd very much like to avoid requiring cygwin > > for this to work. Plus, with cygwin, I would guess my original Linux > > approach would probably work without modification. > > I don't understand the "plus".  Why is that an additional reason to > not want to work with cygwin? You caught me. That was bad wording on my part. s/Plus//. > > Finally, after testing it out briefly, I don't think fork will work in > > my situation. I didn't give enough context originally, > > Aha! > > > but I'm > > spawning the new child process in order for it to be the same process > > as the parent, but having picked up any code changes that have been > > made. A "live reboot", if you will. Fork doesn't seem to re-interpret > > the source. > > fork() just copies the process - with all open file descriptors etc. > My understanding of Windows internals is limited but I do believe that > there is no direct equivalent function. It may be that the pattern > does not work on "plain" Windows. > > Kind regards > > robert > > -- > remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without endhttp://blog.rubybestpractices.com/ You're right. In fact, calling fork() on plain Windows throws a "not supported by this platform" exception.