Subject: Re: Formal getty replacement yet?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Niklas Hallqvist <email@example.com>
Date: 12/21/1994 00:06:54
>>>>> "Greg" == Greg A Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Greg> It sure is an icky kludge from the unix-philosphy perspective!
Greg> However, doesn't ttymon's management of the port work in a
Greg> similar way to uugetty/uucico or flexfax? I.e. use lock files?
The idea is that a program waiting for dialin should open the device
in blocking mode and a dialout program in non-blocking. Now the
device could allow both uses simultaneously by only allowing blocking
opens to succeed when there is a carrier present *and* no non-blocking
opens of the device has been honoured. The non-blocking opens should
only fail when a blocking open of the device has succeeded. The idea
is to save the blockingness of the open as an indication of whether
the dialin or dialout functionality is wanted, instead of a bit in the
minor device number.
My only reaction to this scheme is that stty's of lines opened with an
outdialing program will fail, but the defenders of this model says
that it's bad practice to let independent parties change port settings
behind a communication program's back. Possibly they are right, but
nonetheless that's what's not backward compatible.
Was this a correct description, Rob? (We've been over this one year
ago on the amiga-dev list).
I have never seen this implemented anywhere but in Commodore's SVR4,
Niklas Hallqvist Phone: +46-(0)31-40 75 00
Applitron Datasystem Fax: +46-(0)31-83 39 50
Molndalsvagen 95 Email: email@example.com
S-412 63 GOTEBORG, Sweden