CompuServe Thread

#Interface design

6 messages in this thread
#42634From: Richard BielakApr 4, 1989 9:44 PM
Using device drivers sounds like an interesting idea, but I think it would be simpler to use plain message ports. I was also thinking of just one File-requester task that would be used by every program on the system. This presents some interesting synchronization problems if more than one program tries to get into the File-Requester, however, there are some nice things you could do as well. For example, the F-R task would be able to preserve the disk/directory context while switching from program to program, so disk access could be sped up a lot. The other attractive thing about this approach, is that it would fairly easy to use a multi-processing system, you know where tasks could be running on a network of Amigas…. . Richie
#42642From: M2S/Phil CampApr 4, 1989 10:22 PM
The device interface would provide all these features quite easily I think. The IO block used to communicate with the device could hold all necessary state information. The device could easily maintain cached directories and share these among the different requesters, etc… Aside from Intuition, the Amiga does not currently have some standard tasks just hanging around with a msg port reay to access. On the other hand, devices are quite common and well understood. Anyway, as long as there's something standard.
#42680From: Black Belt SystemsApr 5, 1989 12:47 AM
Martin, the Amiga can have such a task – ARexx! And that's the way to do it, I think. In fact, I have. <grin>
#42726From: M2S/Phil CampApr 5, 1989 9:48 AM
I do agree that ARexx makes for a nice system. It's also easy (well if you're a programmer) to replace any component by another one. I was thinking of ARexx's speed, but I guess for these types of applications, IPC speed is not an issue.
#42713From: John DraperApr 5, 1989 5:18 AM
Richie, No problem with synchronization… simple reentrant coding and unique caller ID numbers could keep that all straight. -larry
#42735From: Don NafisApr 5, 1989 10:44 AM
Reply port address is a unique caller id. At least for the file requester interface. Network servers would have to bury their own channel ids somewhere in the message. – Don Nafis – Nazlo Associates Ltd –