Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!texbell!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Shared IDCMP Ports--Proposal
Message-ID: <2864@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 19 Oct 88 23:59:00 GMT
References: <3031@amiga.UUCP> <7412@well.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 26

In article <7412@well.UUCP>, ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes:
> 	I feel that IPC communication should occur through a process's
> pr_MsgPort.  All processes are guaranteed to have one and only one, they're
> always in the same place, and they're guaranteed to exist as long as the
> process exists.

And I believe dos.library already uses this port... and has conniption fits
if it gets the wrong message coming in on it.

> I don't see how this
> could be made to work elegantly for the pr_MsgPort (DOS currently throws up
> a deadend alert if it's waiting for one kind of packet and something foriegn
> arrives).

Oh, you already know that.

> 	Anyway, that's my two cents.  I *am* interested in knowing why the
> IDCMP port is so popular.

It comes for free with every window and it doesn't lead to DOS guruing you.
Personally, I prefer allocating a new port for this purpose. It's easy enough,
after all, but if CBM is gonna bless this particular form of IPC it's got a
BIG advantage over PPIPC, OOIPC, DIPC, and maybe even REXX.
-- 
		Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		 Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?