Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!ditto
From: ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Protect Failed
Summary: Shared file access is easier to implement than ExNext()
Message-ID: <5158@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 88 02:07:07 GMT
References: <8810281416.AA01431@decwrl.dec.com> <5147@cbmvax.UUCP> <9968@swan.ulowell.edu> <5157@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 29

In article <5157@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes:
>In article <9968@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes:
>>But the real reason is I want to do the Unix equivalent of
>>
>>datagenerator >>logfile
>>tail -f file
 [ .. .]
>>				I'm sure the answer can't be "because we
>>want to avoid race conditions" when you have something as notorious as
>>ExNext() out there.

>What a peculiar statement; possibly the running the source groups
>(BTW, you seem to be doing a great job so far) is effecting your
>mind. :-)  Are you saying that because we have one area of vunerability,
>additional ones are OK ?

I think he meant that ExNext is such an intensely hairy thing to
implement right, that proper support for file sharing is easy by
comparison.  I'll continue to be frustrated by AmigaDos's "file
sharing" until it is the default mode for fopen(), shell redirection,
etc., and all these "can't do FOO, object in use" errors no longer
happen.
-- 
					-=] Ford [=-

"The number of Unix installations	(In Real Life:  Mike Ditto)
has grown to 10, with more expected."	ford@kenobi.cts.com
- The Unix Programmer's Manual,		...!sdcsvax!crash!elgar!ford
  2nd Edition, June, 1972.		ditto@cbmvax.commodore.com