Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cunews!fts1!atronx!rwm
From: rwm@atronx.UUCP (Russell McOrmond)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: PIPEs
Message-ID: <53407.657565922@atronx.UUCP>
Date: 2 Nov 90 17:12:02 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Lines: 68
In-Reply-To: pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve)

In a message posted on 2 Nov 90 09:15:42 GMT,
pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) wrote:
PG>time -- and there's no way of matching ends without a name...

Hmmm - Here's what I end up doing.  I end up Opening the Pipe Twice to get two
filehandles - I then use one of them in my program, and pass the other one to
a program that I'm running.  I DO get these descriptors at the same time.

Here's WHY you wish them to be un-named this way you KNOW that the names are
unique:  I now do some convaluted task+timer thing to try to make sure I have
a unique name.  With the number of times I use it, it's inevidable that the same
name gets used twice.

  So what might I end up having to do?  A Pipe-Name-Server that's protected by a
semaphore?   All because I don't have Un-named pipes??

  Names are fine when it's a USER that's doing it - BOTH types of pipes are required
at different times.  Neithor type of pipe is perfect for ALL applications.


PG>make the Shell suitably smart -- AND design a suitable syntax. (Avoid "|"
PG>please!)

What's wrong with that notation?  If you don't like that, what do YOU suggest.


PG>has desired, you want to write a POpen function -- or even a pipe(fildes)
PG>call -- I don't see why you can't do it the same way. You don't really need
PG>an unnamed-pipe device.  (I see that someone has done just this, from a
PG>posting just encountered.)

He's working on the same thing that I am, and that is networking software. What
we need to do is run a program (UUX in most cases) that will take message Text
as standard input.

  We Get a copy of UUX running, and then we Output the message to it.  It's real
simple - Except for these names - We end up spending most of our time trying to 
figure the best way to make it Unique.  And the largest BUG in all the programs is
the fact that once in a while it's NOT unique, and this brings the whole thing
down. (You end up with one program tying to output to a pipe where the UUX that
was associated with it is NOT running because when it ran, another pipe was open - 
That pipe got closed, and TWO copies of UUX exited.


PG>On the OTHER hand....  The 1.3 PIPE: is not the device we want to have

I'm running the pipe in 2.0 - I've not found it to be buggy - WHEN I need a
named pipe, it works quite well.

I tried to send the following off to Rick, but the message bounced.

In a message posted on 30 Oct 90 23:53:18 GMT,
rick@rsami.spoami.com (Rick Schaeffer) wrote:
RS>It might be worth noting that I spent some time this past weekend playing
RS>with the Dos2.0 CreateNewProcess and System functions.  They seem to
RS>work fine and I'll be doing a popen/pclose using them this weekend.

This I would be VERY interested in seeing.

:Later

---
  Opinions expressed in this message are my Own.  My Employer does not even
know what these networks ARE.

  Russell McOrmond   rwm@atronx.UUCP   {fts1,alzabo}!atronx!rwm 
  FidoNet 1:163/109  Net Support: (613) 230-2282
  Amiga-Fidonet Support  1:1/109