Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!killer!tness1!nuchat!peter
From: peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: IPC - A proposal
Message-ID: <796@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: 16 Mar 88 03:32:11 GMT
References: <8803130918.AA17776@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 77

Calm down, Matt...

In article ... dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
> :In article ... 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.
> 
> 	It buys you whatever the @$#@! you want.  Since when are we
> limited by Open/Close/Read/Write???

I didn't say it was limited by Open/Close/Read/Write. Open/Close/Read/Write
are the only functions defined as existing on all devices.

If we're going to go this way, then my personal preference would be to make
the message ports real AmigaDOS devices (using the code that you so very
graciously provided for doing this), instead of adding yet another
protocol to the overburdened Amiga. There's already DOS devices, Exec
devices (some of which could even be used for much of what we're trying
to do: pipes and clipboards), REXX ports, IDCMP Ports, and god knows what
else.

I suggested this and was shot down.

> >The standard we're working on here has more in common with IFF than
> >AmigaDOS.
> 
> 	So far, I see nothing in the standard you are working on that
> makes the programmer's job any easier.  Didn't anybody *read* the
> brainstorm I posted for a 'function support library'??????    You
> think people are going to include 20K of support code in the applications
> to make this thing work?

I hardly think it's going to take 20K of support code, since you don't
need to parse anything out of the message (at least you don't with my
protocol), and since you can safely ignore any messages you don't
recognise.

> >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?
> 
> 	What an attitude.  Essentially: "Since I haven't thought about
> what the programmer is going to have to do to implement my messaging
> system, I have decided not to think about it".

Wait a second. That's not a fair nor a valid interpretation of the sort
of thing I'm talking about. I never said you shouldn't have a support
library, nor have I argued against one. I'm just saying that we should
figure out how to make the wheel work before we decide what color to
paint it.

> >> 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.
> 
> 	Not the way you're going.  This is the problem with some
> discussions... we often get into arguments, split, and go our own way. 
> Well, so be it.  You work on your idea, and I'll work on mine, and
> we'll see what happens.

Well, Pete and I are in pretty good agreement so far. We have our differences
but we're pretty close and willing to make concessions.

And while we're in the radical ideas department... how about using AmigaDOS
for this stuff? A lot of what we're talking about can be handled already
by clipboards and pipes. Perhaps we could develop what we have already?

> 	At least IFF is structured!

As is my IPC message form.
-- 
-- 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*.