On Wed 24 Jan 2024 at 00:00:57 (+0700), Max Nikulin wrote: > On 22/01/2024 22:33, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > That's the way it was built -- just mimicking the "real terminal cum > > > firmware" which was replaced with "DOS/Windows PC cum terminal > > > application". > > > > I think it's more than that. It's a design that makes a lot of sense: > > it would be more complex having to connect both the terminal and the > > printer to the server, since the terminal and printer really > > belong together. > > It had a lot of sense at the time when terminals were directly wired > to servers. Currently it is ssh over TCP/IP over Ethernet or WiFi and > there is no a terminal emulator application that supports off-band > communication with printer out of the box. So independent connections > on any network layer would be more flexible. > > Server-side code mixing 2 data streams into single channel may be a > bit more simple than association of 2 connections with the same > client, but the price is this long thread.
OTOH we've all experienced misconfigurations where printer jobs go to the wrong printer. What's the cost of the wrong till-receipt printer opening an unattended cash drawer? There are some benefits that come with localising connections. Cheers, David.
