Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: PIPEs
Message-ID: <15705@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 8 Nov 90 05:47:20 GMT
References: <52839.656702476@atronx.UUCP>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 23

In article <52839.656702476@atronx.UUCP> rwm@atronx.UUCP (Russell McOrmond) writes:
>Yes, we want Un-named Pipes - To use in our own programs as opposed to being
>used within a Shell.

	Actually, what most people seem to want is command-line piping ala
csh in unix (command | command | ...).  This CAN be done without problems with
the current named-pipe handler.  All the shell has to do is choose a unique
name for the pipe, open it twice, and pass the handles to the commands.

	That said, don't wait for | piping - there are some thorny issues,
particularily in script compatibility.  We are providing support for 3rd-party
shells to become system-known "User Shells", and they will be used for any
user shell interaction, without breaking applications which need to be able
to call Execute() and System() with fixed commandlines.  Bill Hawes is being
the first guinea pig for this.  When a shell installs as the default User
Shell, NewShell automatically uses it, for example (no hacks needed).  The
System() call allows the application to specify the Boot Shell, the default
User Shell (for things the user wrote), or a specific shell (by name).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"