Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!kth.se!cyklop.nada.kth.se!news From: d88-jwa@byse.nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Is there a defacto standard for 'drop ins'? Message-ID: Date: 26 Mar 91 09:18:04 GMT References: <1CE00001.aolmdnz@tbomb.ice.com> <13094@adobe.UUCP> <13180@adobe.UUCP> Sender: news@nada.kth.se (Mr News) Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Lines: 33 In-reply-to: hawley@adobe.COM's message of 25 Mar 91 18:07:00 GMT In article <13180@adobe.UUCP> hawley@adobe.COM (Steve Hawley) writes: Actually, I wouldn't want to get blocks at a time. The reason why I suggested a byte stream is that the parent program can decide what buffering scheme is most appropriate for the the drop-in module, and What keeps you from reading blocksa of 1 byte ? And what keeps the host application from passing pointers into its own buffers ? It tells the filter how much there is to read, and the filter tells the host how much it wants... than it is to write a correct block-based filter, and you are forcing everyone who writes a drop in module to do their own buffer handling. Do I ? drop-in modules?" Do you have your answer now? Because no two people will ever agree on what is a "good" standard and the approach you take must be geared for the type of data you intend to be fiddling with. Hmmm... well, maybe I'll sit down and design a _real_ complex interface that lets you pass whatever you choose, and automatically handles interface kinks, as well as lowers your taxes and configures sendmail for you. :-) h+@nada.kth.se Jon W{tte -- "The IM-IV file manager chapter documents zillions of calls, all of which seem to do almost the same thing and none of which seem to do what I want them to do." -- Juri Munkki in comp.sys.mac.programmer