> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 11:49 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Patches for 5.5.650 to build?
>
>
> At 10:39 AM 2/23/00 -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> >At 10:56 AM 2/23/00 -0500, Jordan Henderson wrote:
> > >It appears that the pipe is being opened as a RW mbx (new
> to some recent
> > version
> > >of OpenVMS), so the perl has READ channels and WRITE
> channels on the mbx. I
> > >could be wrong about this, but I have reason to believe it
> (I did an
> > ANAL/SYS
> > >"SHO PROC/CHAN" on a perl that was hung and saw several channels
> > assigned to the
> > >mailbox that it was trying to write the EOF to). I don't
> see why this
> > should be
> > >necessary. It seems to me that a given pipe mbx should be
> either READ
> > or WRITE,
> > >but not both.
> >
> >I'm not sure I understand how you could have 2-way
> communication if the
> >mailbox is not RW. I don't know if vmsperl uses the pipe()
> function from
> >the C RTL or cooks its own, but there is a description of
> how the parent
> >and child communicate through a mailbox in the RTL version at:
>
> We cook our own for `` and magic open. Communication with the
> child process
> is a one-way thing, though if I ever get a chance to implement
> open(FOO,"|bar|") it won't...
Communication is one-way, but I believe you'll find that we
have r/w channels open to the mailboxes in every case. I would
implement open(FOO,"|bar|") as two mailboxes, one in, one out.
If you didn't do this, how could you possibly coordinate the
reading/writing with bar?
>
> Dan
>
> --------------------------------------"it's like
> this"-------------------
> Dan Sugalski even samurai
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
> teddy bears get drunk
>
