🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2966@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>What about the third method? Don't use the standard DOS calls, just send the
>packets yourself. Then you can "Wait(1<<IOPort->mp_SigBit | WaitMask)" and
>get a notice of completion when it's done.
>
>You wrote a library to do this yourself, Matt. It's not a UNIX way of doing
>things, true. It's a very Amiga way of working, though. About the only thing
>you'd need dos.library for would be opening the file in the first place.
>
>Be a lot simpler than your set of packets. Surely you can prune them somewhat.
>-- 

I have to disagree. Programs doing this packet management instead
of some simple setup calls that control a basic set of orthogonal
functions is much simpler then managing a several sets of asynch packets
that have been sent to multiple destinations.

Let's say you have sent several asynch packets to several destinations.
One comes back saying there is data there now. What do you do with the
outstanding packets? I need to cancel those packets and yank them back.

This get's all very messy, I know since I've written a library to try
to emulate nonblocking i/o that deals with several types of files and
the way to get at the information I need (like BytesReadable) is not
standardized. So we clearly need this information to be made available.

After looking at the way the unix libraries work and the packets in
amigados I have to say the unix stuff, being a library mechanism is
easier to program.
-- 
Dale Luck     Boing, Inc. {uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale
Although I do contract work for Amiga-LosGatos, my opinions probably
don't represent those of Commodore or its management or its engineers,
but I think the world would be a better place if they did.