3 ms·
> The motivation for this design is that a client can send a transaction and then wait for a response with one ioctl syscall. In contrast, IPC with sockets requ
by vitiral 2y ago
> The motivation for this design is that a client can send a transaction and then wait for a response with one ioctl syscall. In contrast, IPC with sockets requires two syscalls, send and recv.
What a great motivation. Oh wait, then you write your literal operating system and all services in Java of all languages.
I find Android's architecture so frustrating, all the wrong design decisions
- kaba0 2y agoThen maybe learn a bit about it, before you decide based on bullshit whether you like it or not? Not that anyone would care about your opinion even then, when you can’t even get right such a basic thing as what it’s written in — then you surely are an expert of the topic.
- vitiral 2y agoI'm aware that binder itself isn't written in Java of that's what you mean (?)
- kelnos 2y agoYeah, I read that and did a double-take. That seems like a pretty silly micro-optimization. Binder is indeed widely used on Android, but I wouldn't expect in tight loops or critical paths. Sure, syscalls aren't cheap, but I can't see this odd interface saving much. Just seems like a recipe for confusion and bugs.
- p_l 2y agoIt is very much used in tight loops and critical paths, including graphics, audio, video, etc.
- pjmlp 2y agoWithout companies like Google, the best the community is able to deliver is to keep cloning 1970's UNIX in C, ever and ever again.