Re: backend fork/reader-process <-> sane_read

From: Oliver Rauch (oliver.rauch@Wolfsburg.DE)
Date: Sun Feb 20 2000 - 15:13:52 PST

  • Next message: msitkows@au1.ibm.com: "Re: New CVS snapshot 20000213"

    Yuri Dario wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > >wait until data is available.
    > >If this works like I expect we do not need any fork or thread.
    >
    > that's will be nice: fork() is not the best solution for OS/2, and my
    > threads implementation is not perfect.
    >

    at least at unix a fork is more compatible than a thread.
    But I think in the moment the fork is used very stupid.

    We will be most compatible to all systems if we do not use anything like that.

    When I find the time I will play around a bit with a reader routine
    without a fork and a second or a larger buffer. But that will not
    come for sane-1.0.2 ;-)

    Bye
    Oliver 

    --
Homepage:       http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch
sane-umax:      http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch/sane/sane-umax.html
xsane:          http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch/sane/sane-xsane.html
E-Mail:         mailto:Oliver.Rauch@Wolfsburg.DE

    --
Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 20 2000 - 15:12:33 PST