CompuServe Messages

AmiagBinary

    17-Mar-86 20:00:11
Sb: #11373-AmiagBinary
Fm: Bela Lubkin/Sysop 76703,3015
To: Bill Bond 74435,160
Bill, I don't see that the 128 byte alignment makes any difference in implementing the transfer. A sender builds a 128 byte header, then sends the whole thing to the protocol stream; a receiver, when it needs another header, requests 128 bytes from the protocol stream. Those primitives will be needed for the actual file sends and receives; doing the header with them makes no difference. I agree that there's a slight advantage to doing file opens/closes at packet boundaries, but it's slight. With a system of input and output streams, the AmigaBinary formatter shouldn't even be aware of packet boundaries. Anyway, 128 is only a boundary for XMODEM. A, B, YMODEM and Kermit all use different packet sizes. AmigaBinary does define a minimum implementation, which does not include SQ/USQ/ARC handling. Also note that I hope to have a PD implementation of a full AmigaBinary packer/unpacker, relatively soon (I will write it if nobody else does). One purpose of AmigaBinary is to make things simple for the non-expert. Given a full AmigaBinary implementation in his terminal program, the non-expert needs only to get the host to start sending, then tell his terminal program to receive a file. The program takes it from there. The provisions for squeezing/etc, and also for multiple files, are defined to give a standard to their implementation instead of having people come up with their own tangential additions to the format. I'm not really expecting first implementations to handle those things, but some day people will be doing them, and they'll have a common standard instead of doing it their own way — I hope… I hope you'll help. – Bela PS: *$&#! I meant to upload this reply a while ago, but forgot to (along with the rest of this file). I will be putting up the next revision of the spec tonight or tomorrow, but I may extend the change deadline another week, depending on what happens.