Dave Brown (firstname.lastname@example.org)
24 Jul 87 13:27:08 GMT
In article <In article <561@applix.UUCP> In article <561@applix.UUCP> mark@applix.UUCP (Mark Fox) writes:
>>In article <>>In article <649@houxa.UUCP>, >>In article <649@houxa.UUCP>, mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes:
>>> Would someone please post a summary of reasons why use of Streams is
>>> an advantage... is there a reason Streams is better? than sockets?...
>>> Does the end user see any advantage?...
>Don't get me wrong - I'm not a socket bigot - but I have never seen an
>implementation of streams and I am still curious why some people prefer them.
There is interest in streams for several reasons.
1) It looks elegant.
2) It comes from an acknowleged Unix expert.
3) It *looks* (emphais added) more general than sockets.
4) It allows a structured decomposition of some of the
hot-spots in Unix (terminal handling, protocols)
into subparts which can be placed on a front-end
There is use of streams for other reasons.
1) Bell provides it instead of sockets.
2) Some customers will buy anthing that Berkley *doesn't* make.
3) Some system/hardware designers want (4) above.
4) Some system/hardware designers have fallen in love with
any of the above.
Personally, I like (4), having worked on a machine which used
FEPs effectively (as well as two which didn't, all from the same
--dave (unix hack on a 'bun) collier-brown
-- David (Collier-) Brown. | Computer Science Geac Computers International Inc., | loses its memory 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:38:48 GMT