Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!peter
From: peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: IPC - A proposal
Message-ID: <779@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: 13 Mar 88 02:26:19 GMT
References: <8803091817.AA18212@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 31

In article <8803091817.AA18212@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
> >dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) says:
> >> ... use an exec IOStdReq request structure ...
> >What in the Guru's name would that buy you?

> 	It buys you generality, that is what it buys you.

IOStdReq buys you Open, Close, Read, and Write.

That's fine, but if you're going to do that you might as well make all the
message ports device ports and put them in the AmigaDOS namespace. Something
I suggested a long time ago and got shot down over. If you're not going
to do that... make them look like files, that is... you might as well not
force them into the linear space of files.

The standard we're working on here has more in common with IFF than AmigaDOS.
> 	An IOStdReq has all the necessary message junk,  you can use other 
> fields (like io_Offset) for other purposes...

Exactly. If you want to do more than the common file operations you're going to
have to extend or modify it anyway. Since we're mostly talking about structures
that go beyond them anyway, why not blow it off?

> I don't want to have to use ten thousand 
> different custom structures when I use this system!

You won't have to, any more than you do with IFF.
-- 
-- 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*.