CompuServe Thread

#Order of Operations

6 messages in this thread
#1409From: George BricknerJul 19, 1988 10:04 PM
Actually, Henry, I prefer Whap! doing a RM at the start. This way I can get the messages addressed to me at once and then peruse the bulk download at my leisure. I'd like to see an easier way of telling Whap! to just check for marked messages and not do a QSN or RTM and certainly not do a HI;L. I like to check for messages daily and then do a bulk download or QSN once or twice weekly. Geo
#1497From: Henry ColonnaJul 20, 1988 8:51 AM
I was thinking – what would help out a whole lot is if CIS could make some software enhancements to accomodate programs like Whap!, then things would be much more flexible and with many more options.
#1618From: George BricknerJul 20, 1988 11:08 PM
Well, Henry, speaking as an experienced DP'er, I know how CIS could make it very easy for programs like Whap!. The best way for these programs to work is to send and receive messages and files in a transaction format that is optiomized for program to program communications. Of course, CompuServe would have to write a completely different interface for such a format, but the chief advantage is that this new interface is completely separate from the current interactive interface. If CIS changes the SIGware again, the batch users wouldn't care because they wouldn't be using that interface. The tricky bit is defining the batch interface. I'd imagine that it be a variable length record (either ASCII text or binary) with a verb, parameters and data. All the data fields would be strongly defined which would eliminate the need to parse the heck out of the Forum messages. Each field would be identified and have implicit or explicit length. The user's batch program would be able to easily extract information like: TO; FROM; SUBJECT; Message Number; SubTopic; Replies and Message Text. In theory, they could use a compression technique ala ARC and B Protocol for the transfer. It'd be a BIG job, but it could be done. The issue is whether or not the effort is worth it. I think it has great potential for the unsophisticated Forum user. Oh, well, I am rambling amok. Geo
#1623From: Allen MittsJul 21, 1988 12:33 AM
George, That does sound like a great idea, but somehow I don't think CIS is gonna go for it. They are in business to make money, and that sounds like it would cut everyone's usage down ALOT which means of course it would cut into CIS's gain quite a bit 🙂 I'm just happy we have a program like Whap! to help us out. This has been really great so far. Allen
#1658From: John DraperJul 21, 1988 2:22 AM
Allen, CIS believes, and rightly so, proven by past experience, that when the customer's online time is cut way down, yet the same benefit is gained in terms of information gathered or sent, that their revenues go _up_, not down. Believe me, if it was feasible for them to provide a non-interactive interface that would allow you to do the same things in half the time, they would do it, and would profit from it. This comes about because of two reasons… one is that a person receiving the same benefit in less time is liable to use the system more, normally to a degree that comes close to matching the previous time spent, and the other is that new users are attracted due to the decreased cost. They will always profit if the perceived value per dollar spent is increased. -larry
#1663From: Doug WingerJul 21, 1988 2:36 AM
George, Looks like perhaps CIS is thinking about the future. Thre should be an extension to the B+ protocol to handle an 'Applications Packet' type of packet. Maybe…. Doug