Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!peter
From: peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: IPC - A proposal
Message-ID: <776@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: 12 Mar 88 13:19:34 GMT
References: <5375@well.UUCP> <739@nuchat.UUCP> <7455@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1427@louie.udel.EDU>
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 19

In article <1427@louie.udel.EDU>, rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes:
> I am real uncomfortable with the mechanisms proposed so far. Sounds
> like we really need a 'port broker' that people talk to. Or something.

Damn this net delay :->. I hope you got my port-broker proposal before you
get this message.

> Are you all sure that we can't use something like PIPE: as a 
> (higher level, not really RKM kind of ) port
> broker? This scribbling into a port just bugs me somehow. 

It's a bit low level, yes, but it's a lot more efficient than PIPE:, and
it doesn't have to be a stream of bytes. You can pass all sorts of things
in a message that would be inconvenient to pass in a PIPE. Things like
pointers and locks.
-- 
-- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva  `-_-'
-- normally  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter                U
-- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.