Re: seekable pipes

Actually, I don't see how it matters either way. Named
pipes get set up in pretty much the same way as
anonymous ones, except the two processes don't have to
be related. But the point is that the seekability of
the pipe is essentially a property of the reader of
that pipe, not the writer -- thus one can imagine
being able to do:
$ command_that_understands_seekable_pipes |
command_that_requires_seekable_stdin
without the second command or the shell having to know
anything in particular about the seekable pipes API. 

One can also imagine a special command, seekcat, which
takes unseekable stdin, and buffers it to create a
seekable stdout.

--- Bryan Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:

> When you first described the concept, I was thinking
> of named pipes, which 
> someone would separately create.  It's still good
> for that.  For 
> shell-made pipes
> (| and <>()), though, I agree -- the shell has to
> change.  I don't see any 
> other reasonable way.
> 
> --
> Bryan Henderson                     IBM Almaden
> Research Center
> San Jose CA                         Filesystems 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html