Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt
From: doug-merritt@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: What about the serial port IPC discussion?
Message-ID: <5500@cup.portal.com>
Date: 16 May 88 22:04:49 GMT
References: <30731@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <856@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> <31046@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <5255@cup.portal.com> <31774@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 20
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.4407

Tony, I understand and agree with your examples about multiple
readers being a good thing (e.g. funneling ascii capture off to
another process).

What I was referring to was "dumb" uncoordinated multiple readers.
In other words, if you tried to start up several tasks which all
tried to read the serial port at the same time, without knowing that
the others exist. This seems obviously undesirable to me both in
theory and from experience.

I was just trying to underscore the importance of having one smart
reader read directly from the serial port, and to funnel what it
sees off to other tasks *as appropriate*.

This is probably an obvious point, sorry to overexplain.
   Doug
---
      Doug Merritt        ucbvax!sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt
                      or  ucbvax!eris!doug (doug@eris.berkeley.edu)
                      or  ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug