Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:17625 comp.sys.amiga.tech:294 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!mordor!sri-spam!ames!pasteur!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!pete From: pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: IPC for Protocols in Terminal Emulators Message-ID: <8721@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 14 Apr 88 06:09:34 GMT References: <907@nuchat.UUCP> Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: pete@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Pete Goodeve) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 32 Keywords: IPC remote protocol FTP In article <907@nuchat.UUCP> Peter da Silva writes: > In article ... mccarrol@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark C. Carroll ) writes: > > struct RFTP_Message > >.....[ describes his suggestion for a file transfer program message format.] [Peter makes some pertinent comments on the original suggestions.] > command line format is: > > program SEND file... > program RECIEVE file... ^^^^^ Ahem... "RECEIVE" [picky, picky..., but we'd better spell keywords right!] > I think you need to go into a bit more detail as to exactly who sends what > messages to whom, and when. My feeling as well. > Finally, here's the Pete/Peter IPC suggestion: > [...goes on to suggest a scheme using our message structure] I've no quarrel with the suggestions as such, but my basic feeling is that this whole approach is wrong. I find the current Tony Sumrall/Doug Merritt discussion much more to the point. They seem to be hashing out some good ideas there, such as a serial port IPC server. (Maybe I think they're good because they're pretty close to my original IPC suggestions from way back (:^)) -- Pete --