Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!usl!sigma
From: sigma@usl.UUCP (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Kernel mods and RTIngres
Message-ID: <508@usl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-May-85 23:16:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: usl.508
Posted: Fri May 17 23:16:44 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 20-May-85 08:20:45 EDT
References: <410@wdl1.UUCP>
Reply-To: sigma@usl.UUCP (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Organization: USL Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 24

In article <410@wdl1.UUCP> jbn@wdl1.UUCP writes:
>
>      RTI needs to get their act together.  Requiring kernel changes for
>an applications program is totally out of line in today's world.  The
>``Ingres lock device'' is a hack that dates back to at least PWB/Unix
>and maybe before.  There is enough interprocess communication available
>now that it shouldn't be necessary.
>
>						JN

You bet they need! I am writing a restricted natural language interface
for it, storing the dictionary in Ingres itself. Not much of it, ~200
words so far, but it just takes FOR EVER!. The worst thing is that
a lot of the time is spent for interprocess communication... pipe'em
in, flush 'em out, etc! Anyone wants to buy a NL interface for RTI,
anyway? :-)

Oh, before I forget: has anyone done any serious development work on RTI
using EQUEL? I want to see how other people think about it. 
(In terms of performance, ease of programming, cludge-ness, etc)
As usual, please respond by e-mail...

Spiros                                ut-sally!usl!sigma