Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:33662 comp.sys.amiga.tech:5070
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tank!ncar!ames!oliveb!apple!well!shf
From: shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Standard File Requesters
Message-ID: <11635@well.UUCP>
Date: 12 May 89 05:34:02 GMT
References: <0914.AA0914@amigash> <941@sactoh0.UUCP> <11583@well.UUCP> <2915@cps3xx.UUCP> <104117@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson)
Distribution: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech
Organization: The Blue Planet
Lines: 28

+-- cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes:
| In article <11583@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes:
| >How about a "filerequester.library?"  It could be spec'ed as having a 
| In article <2915@cps3xx.UUCP> golden@cps3xx.UUCP (golden james) writes:
| >Or even a FileReq.device - who knows?  Just drop your favorite in the
| 
| How about ARP? You may not like the file requester in the ARP library
| but it is a) a shared library, b) a defined file requester interface.
| So every thing you need is in place. Just SetFunction() the requester
| code with your own requester if you want to change it.

Objection!  SetFunction(), I my opinion, is a hack.  And a pretty poor
one at that.  It locks the library in memory, even when it's not in
use, and it requires the USER to correctly nest the setfunctioning and
un-setfuntioning of nis tools.  The first is a bad limitation, but the
second is unacceptable from a user's point of view.  If they get the
nesting wrong - Boom!

| When I installed
| ARP 1.3 it didn't sink in, but when I brought up VlT and went to 
| upload a file, the new requester was there and it was really neat.
| --Chuck McManis

Yeah, there are great advantages to this shared code thing -- we're just
so used to the "monolithic" program approach that it's hard to see.
-- 
		Stuart Ferguson		(shf@well.UUCP)
		Action by HAVOC