Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!mtunx!whuts!mhuxh!mhuxu!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuhk!mhuxo!ulysses!thumper!faline!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: IPC - IPCMessage and Networks Keywords: IPC, standard, network Message-ID: <1948@sugar.UUCP> Date: 8 May 88 22:22:16 GMT References: <5699@well.UUCP> <9131@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5819@well.UUCP> <5896@well.UUCP> Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX Lines: 44 In article <5896@well.UUCP>, shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: > All the server has to do > is ignore the parts of the message it doesn't understand. The client on > the other hand has to examine the replied message carefully to see what > the server ignored and what it understood. I don't see a way around this. Have you an alternative? > I hope you don't want your message format hated as much as the IFF > standard. ;-) I *like* the IFF standard. I don't know why people are turned off by it. The only thing that's obscure about IFF is the recursive stuff is a pain, but very few programs use the recursive stuff. > In fact, IFF files turn out to be a bad analogy for these > very same reasons -- the work gets done by the wrong participant. It's > MUCH easier to write IFF files than to read them, the reverse of the way > you would want it. This is a general problem with communication between programs written by different people. You generally have a standard that's too simple to be useful or one that's too complex to use. IFF is a good compromise. > The o-o approach needs more than what the IPCMessage provides, however, > since it needs a standard for data exchange as well as messages. The > data exchange standard are the "objects" in the scheme. From my reading I got the impression that servers were the objects, and the o-o stuff was mainly intended to get the right guys talking... with the added advantage that you could do a "sendsuper" to your parent for messages you didn't grok. > Overall, I like the IPCMessage format. Even though I find there are > things I can't do with it, it does have a simplicity that I find > appealing. I'm trying to create a hybrid standard using the best parts > of both the IPCMessage format and the object-oriented design I have been > working on. I'll shout if I come up with anything brilliant. Please do. I'll give your stuff another read. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.