Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Vote Result on Resource Tracking
Message-ID: <821@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Sep-87 11:27:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: sugar.821
Posted: Fri Sep 25 11:27:11 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 03:08:38 EDT
References: <1449@tao.UUCP> <4000@well.UUCP> <537@atux01.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 23
Summary: Please... not a message port!

> [we need a standard message port for doing things like... and killing
> programs]

Yes, we need a standard message port that programs look at. What are our
choices? Well, IDCMP is out, 'cos not all programs open windows. And of
course Intuition doesn't like you IDCMPing behins its back.

How about agreeing to use the task message port? All programs already have
one of these? If not, why not?

BUT... don't expect this message port to solve the "killing wedged program"
problem. Wedged programs are usually wedged because they're in an infinite
loop somewhere and not looking at their message port. A better solution is
to agree to stick your cleanup routine in the entry in the task structure
for this purpose. To kill a program you call this routine in the program's
context. Badly behaved programs will just have the default RemTask here, but
at least they won't be soaking up CPU time anymore. Well behaved ones will
clean up almost everything and go away. You'll be no worse off, and maybe
better off.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
--                 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?
-- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.