Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Summary: Is there a select()-like call for message queues? Message-ID: Date: 15 Jan 90 18:07:04 GMT References: <1826@xyzzy.UUCP> <11925@smoke.BRL.MIL> <11950@smoke.BRL.MIL> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 19 > -Let's add 4 new system calls: aread, awrite, await, and status. > -This doesn't break any existing programs, nor does it do any injury to > -the design goals of UNIX. > Yes, it does! Go back and read what I said in my previous message. I'm sorry, but other than the assertion that asynchronous I/O is itself a violation of the design goals I don't see anything that would lead to this conclusion. And I don't see that that, in and of itself, is a problem in the face of all the poor asynchronous I/O models that are spreading like gangrene through the UNIX world. At the worst it's a matter of choosing the lesser of two necessary evils. I mean you seem to agree that *allowing* asynchronous I/O is a good idea. Can you come up with a cleaner model? I'd love to see it. I would agree that asynchronous I/O makes for problems in the traditional big-kernel-with-ad-hoc-coroutines *implementation* of UNIX. But that's another story. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'