Re: Weigh in on Fast400 . . .

["James W. Kilgore" <eMail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

jt,

AFAIK, SPECIAL files are limited to open, close, read, write and update.

This would have to be expanded to include READC, CHAIN, and EXFMT.  So I think
that Leif is on a better track than using SPECIAL files.

I was giving some thought to why when both the HTTP and telnet servers are batch
jobs, that the telnet client is "interactive" and the http client is not.  The
only thing that I can think of is that the telnet session requires a constant
connection where the http client does not.  The telnet server "knows" when Elvis
left the building and the HTTP server could care less.

Oh well.  I better get back to work.

jt wrote:
>
> Hate to throw a sticky wicket into the mix.  The SEPT would work fine, but
> SPECIAL files already include that capability.
>
> BTW, James, what you described is exactly what I'm talking about.  MI is one
> approach, SPECIAL files is another...  There are advantages and
> disadvantages to each, but either can be used to accomplish something like
> this.
>