Groups > comp.os.msdos.programmer > #3971

Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports

Newsgroups	comp.os.msdos.programmer
Date	2021-04-26 14:10 -0700
References	(5 earlier) <s639fu$ag9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <08aa84aa-2c84-4013-821c-67e04b7b4ceen@googlegroups.com> <s661tt$vvk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <d6ac0b06-f034-41fe-b9ec-c3d0fb525d10n@googlegroups.com> <s66d72$10j2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Message-ID	<91cf7f87-e2fc-4c94-bc1b-331c1c6085b2n@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports
From	"muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:55:01 PM UTC+10, R.Wieser wrote:

> > And if my BBS is in turn waiting on the news server 
> > on the internet, I don't see that there is much choice 
> > but to wait for that.

> For either of the above examples I gave I can press ctrl-c to abort. I 
> can easily imagine that a BBS would accept a key stroke or command to do the 
> same. But as your client program is using blocking I/O you could be 
> pressing keys all you want, but those won't be send until after you got your 
> response back from the BBS ... 

A long-running "grep -R" running within PDOS, forget
about the BBS, would be considered to be using
blocking I/O (on the disk, not the BBS), wouldn't it?

Interrupting either the disk or the BBS is an independent
activity, isn't it?

> Granted, blocking I/O is much easier to work with

Are you talking about from an application programmer's
perspective, a user's perspective, or something else?

You're now touching on the heart of PDOS design.

PDOS wasn't really designed up front. It was just
"use C90 and look like MSDOS and be 32-bit instead
of 16-bit".

> But keep the downside of it in mind. 

Can you list those? It might be possible to
overcome them.

I guess it depends on what we're trying to achieve.

What would be a sensible achievement in your eyes?

BTW, I started this project in 1994.

BFN. Paul.

Thread

MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-23 16:19 -0700
  Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-23 18:26 -0600
    Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-23 18:47 -0700
      Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-23 20:08 -0600
        Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-23 20:40 -0700
      Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-23 20:14 -0600
      Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-04-24 10:07 +0200
        Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-24 15:04 -0700
          Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-04-25 10:32 +0200
            Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-26 01:32 -0700
              Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-04-26 11:42 +0200
                Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-26 04:42 -0700
                Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-04-26 14:54 +0200
                Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-26 14:10 -0700
                Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-04-27 11:40 +0200
                Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-27 03:56 -0700
                Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-05-01 21:56 +0200
                Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-01 14:36 -0700
                Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-05-02 10:29 +0200
                Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-02 02:14 -0700
    Re: MSDOS 3.2 COM ports Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2021-04-28 14:15 +1000

csiph-web