Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!van-bc!root From: lphillips@lpami.van-bc.UUCP (Larry Phillips) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Time is of the essence on IPC. Message-ID: <1705@van-bc.UUCP> Date: 11 Apr 88 07:45:22 GMT Sender: root@van-bc.UUCP Lines: 81 In <903@nuchat.UUCP>, peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > Putting pipes in a console handler? Defining an IPC protocol > that's hooked up to a programming language? You seem to have a genius for > mixing your metaphors. Well, I suppose pipes in a shell are a little different than the usual approach, but I don't see any great problem with it. In fact, _something_ should parse the pipe operator so that you don't have to muck about with redirection kludges, and can just use a nice, short pipe operator like... oh, let's use "|". As for an IPC protocol hooked to a programming language, there are two things I would mention. First, ARexx ports in a program do not necessarily need ARexx in order for another program to use them. If an editor has an ARexx interface that allows commands to be passed to it, any program can do a FindPort and send commands. It seems to me that the IPC protocol being spoken of on the net will do exactly the same thing. Second, allowing a programming language, especially a script/macro interpreter to do the calling (and to accept commands, data, or status back from a program) is a great way to make the facility even more powerful by allowing the user, rather than only the programmer, to specify how any two programs will interact > I just find your programs frustrating. They're not Zen. They're so un-Amiga. > Maybe it's just a matter of personal style, but I can't get over the feeling > that we're not really working on the same machine. Which programs of Bill's do you find frustrating? I know it isn't ARexx, since by your own admission, you don't have it. I use a combination of WShell, ARexx, ConMan, and PIP: to provide an extremely powerful and easy to use environment. UnAmiga? Last time I looked, script files were part of the Amiga, as were message ports, windows, command lines, and the ability to tailor applications to the needs of the user. When a programmer writes an application, he has no way of knowing what wild and wonderful thing a user might want to do with it. The author may not have even seen a program that I want to use in conjunction with it, yet if both contain sufficiently complete ARexx interfaces, I can use them together in ways that _I_ want to use them. > You could send commands to REXX from programs that haven't been set up to > deal with REXX. The ARexx interface is well documented. All you need to do from any program is a FindPort, then start sending messages that conform to the interface spec. Of course with the type of IPC being discussed here recently, all you would have to do is a FindPort, then start sending messages that conform to the interface spec. > One of the items on my stack of things to do when I have time is a CON: > type handler that provides ANSI-style escape sequences to do things like: > > Menus. > Function keys. > Graphics (probably based on DEC Regis graphics). > Changing the title bar. > Adding a close box (that sends ^C). > Scroll bars like the Bridge Card software's windows. > > And with a clipboard interface. That's the sort of thing that a CON: device > needs. Sounds a lot like the things you can do with WShell and ARexx. You really should take a good look at it Peter. I'd be very interested in hearing your comments about it once you've used it. -larry Disclaimer - I have met and chatted with Bill Hawes briefly, and own ARexx and WShell. Beyond that, I have no connection with Bill. -- Janus? Well, look at it this way. If you squint a little, the J could be Amiga checkmark, and the rest of the word describes MsDos. +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 | +----------------------------------------------------------------+