[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [SpeechIO-50] EOFs (was: Re: [SpeechIO-12] speechd v0.39)



On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Kyle Burton wrote:


> Yes, when you use '>>' everything seems to work fine.  What I'm worried about
> are users, or other developers, who do '>'.  Another developer, even corporate
> software developer (I'm dreaming now, but bare with me), might write
> software in some other language (perhaps C?) that opens /dev/speech, writes
> text to it, and closes it (and sends the EOF), thereby screwing up our
> little convention of allways using '>>'.  If there is a plethora of software
> doing i/o to /dev/speech, then we raise the risk of something sending the 
> dreaded EOF -- this is something we can handle.  If we can handle it, know
> how to handle it, but decide not to, then I think the software is not well
> behaved.

Have you ever tested what you just said ?  

I just did.  >  had the same (non)effect as >>.  

> These are of course my opinions, I just feel that it's something that would
> make the software much more robust.  We could include it optionaly, but I'd
> want the software to be as solid as possible.  I'm not looking at it from
> our point of view, but rather trying to look at it from someone else's pov.

Yes, an implimentation as a kernel module could be more robust and solid.
But from what I see, the *only* difference is when something opens to
over-write instead of append, and starts causing dropped lines.  Yes, it's
a flaw, but I think not a major one, and not significant enough to loose
the power/speed of development/ease of maintenence of Perl, and add the
extra complications of building, maintaining, and installing a kernel
module.  

I figure we'll end up agreeing on something eventually.

Could you do the input w/ a really small kernel module that just sent
output to another program -- basically consisting of most of what speechd
is ?  So we don't loose Perl....

How were you thinking about doing this ?

__________________________________________________________________
PGP fingerprint = 03 5B 9B A0 16 33 91 2F  A5 77 BC EE 43 71 98 D4
            darxus@op.net / http://www.op.net/~darxus
                         Far Beyond Reason