[Development] QTcpSocket, QLocalSocket, common-use-model?

Charley Bay charleyb123 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 8 23:23:46 CEST 2012

I stumbled across an interesting discussion from Feb-2008 about using
QTcpSocket and QLocalSocket, which also suggested the design might be
revisited post Qt5:



 - QTcpSocket (derived from QAbstractSocket) is really a
network-socket with a network-address

 - QLocalSocket (NOT derived from QAbstractSocket) is not really a
network-socket (and does not have a network-address), but is
implemented as a named-pipe on Windows, so you can communicate with
all the Windows computers on the network.

QUESTION:  If you logically need a "network-socket" (LAN or WAN, but
sometimes accidentally on the same-computer), is there a *performance*
issue (or any reasonable design preference) where QLocalSocket would
be "preferable" to a QTcpSocket?  (...in the case where you detected
you were on the "same-computer" or a "Windows-network" so you could
use QLocalSocket, and you used QTcpSocket for other networks?)

This email thread suggests one could write an abstraction to handle
this, and I'm thinking about doing it, if it's not stupid:


I'm thinking about writing this abstraction.  My greatest design needs:

 - performance (many clients, single server, small packets)
 - can "keep" socket instances (since socket recycling on Win7 seems
really expensive, and the OS doesn't free them up fast, so we've run
out if you frequently setup/tear-down.)

Does the "MyLocalSocketOrTcpSocket" class seem stupid, or should I
just use "QTcpSocket" all the time?

Is this something that will be re-visited post Qt5?



More information about the Development mailing list