Libuv: AF_UNIX on Windows

[justinmk]

AF_UNIX is supported on Windows now, and has some advantages over named pipes:
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/af_unix-comes-to-windows/

What are your thoughts on adding support for this to the uv_pipe_* family of functions?

1. Since UV_NAMED_PIPE already means "named pipe" on Windows and "unix socket" on Unix, maybe a new UV_UNIX_SOCKET flag could be used to opt-into AF_UNIX behavior on Windows?
2. Alternative: on Windows versions where AF_UNIX is supported, UV_NAMED_PIPE could use AF_UNIX unconditionally. But this could break applications that assume pipe names have \\.\pipe\... format.

[saghul]

I think something along the lines of 1) would be best. We have uv_pipe_init_ex which. takes a flags argument so there is a place where this could be turned on.

[vtjnash]

I think the main challenge/question would be that the uv_pipe_* code currently expects to operate on a windows HANDLE object, whereas this would be a SOCKET object. So should this fall more under uv_tcp or uv_pipe? I expect it would share most of its code with uv_tcp and little with uv_pipe. On Unix, UV_NAMED_PIPE presently means {"pipe" or "fifo" or "unix socket"}. We could perhaps move the "unix socket" capabilities into the existing libuv stream socket representation (aka uv_tcp) though, which might be more cross-platform stable (due to somewhat better alignment with the underlying system APIs everywhere).

Aside: for anonymous local sockets (e.g. not with connect/bind on filesystem paths), in https://github.com/libuv/libuv/pull/1498, I am adding uv_socketpair for making local socket pairs.

[saghul]

That's kinda what Unix does with having most of the stuff in stream.c, right? Makes sense to do the same here IMHO.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[justinmk]

This stale bot is obnoxious. What is the point of closing old issues just because no one addressed them ?