To: stik@ON-Luebeck.DE
Subject: Re: [3] STIK: INETD                                                             


On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:13:19  Peter Rottengatter <perot wrote: 
>
>On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Guy Harrison wrote:
>
>> Except for tos < 1.2 where as you say below, this pointer doesn't 
>> exist.
>
>Do we really need to support TOS 1.00 ?

IMHO no, not really.
But where it can be done easily, without hampering
the software in any way, I still recommend doing it.


>> Our needs can be catered for simply by the provision of a function 
>> which allows the owner of a particular memory block to be changed.
>
>No, we also need inheriting ports !! (Channels in terminology of GEMDOS)

Yes!


>> It should, invoking Pexec(4) would be where the problems would arise. 
>> Until this is done, the Pexec(3) code has no "childlike" attibutes 
>> that I am aware of.
>
>The child inherits the standard channels (CON, PRN, AUX) at Pexec (3, ...) 
>timenot at Pexec (4, ...). For long this has been considered a bug in 
>TOS, but no version has this behaviour changed.

It is probably done that way to allow debuggers and shells to redirect I/O
before starting the programs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards:  Ronald Andersson                     mailto:dlanor@oden.se
                                               http://www.oden.se/~dlanor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
