svc@well.UUCP (Leonard Rosenthol) (10/23/89)
I would like to put my two cents into the CTB vs. Comm Programs discussion. For many months now the commercial communications developers have been discussion amongst ourselves (yes, I do talk to my competitors :-) about the merits and demerits(??) of the CTB and the general consencous is that the CTB is, of course, a good thing both for us and for our users. It will make it easier for us to add new emulators and protocols as well as provide connections we may not even have thought possible - HOWEVER it is certainly not the end all and is FAR from perfect for many of us. The biggest problem with doing development for it now and probably the biggest reason that WK11 and MPII3.0 do not support it is that IT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC! It would certainly not be a good marketing practice to develop a product using someone else's technology and then have to hold the product until the other product ships...Once the CTB becomes avail, will you start to see versions of commercial comm products that use it - sure - but who, what. when, etc. is anybody's guess. There are also some serious limitiations of the CTB for many developers that have not been mentioned before and have even been glossed over. Among them are the inability to properly integrate with a scripting/macro language. There is not way when supporting the CTB to say something like 'Set Terminal Parameter Columns to 80'. The only way to set the parameters of a tool is either via a dialog (no good during automatic scripting!) or via a config string which is specific to the tool - if the tool changes then the string changes and the and command will fail - but the script relies on that settings.... Another problem has to do with graphics terminals - contrary to the docs in the CTB stuff, you can not fully implement support for most/all graphics terminals. Go ahead - try doing a Tek 4014, for example.... Also the question comes up as to how ana pplication with a scripting language interacts with a graphics terminal...Can/Should you be able to do something like 'When Pixel is Green.. or Wait till Square is 10x10?' Or am I out in left field on this one? I personally have nothing against the CTB, I think it is an excellent idea and it is very much like things other have devised like Juri, myself, etc. I am hoping that future versions will solved some of the above problems (and others not mentioned) but for a first release I think they did a very good job -- +--------------------------------------------------+ Leonard Rosenthol | GEnie : MACgician Lazerware, inc. | MacNet: MACgician UUCP: svc@well.UUCP | ALink : D0025
kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) (10/25/89)
In article <14238@well.UUCP> svc@well.UUCP (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: > >Columns to 80'. The only way to set the parameters of a tool is either via a >dialog (no good during automatic scripting!) or via a config string which is >specific to the tool - if the tool changes then the string changes and the >and command will fail - but the script relies on that settings.... Yes and no. You can call TMSetConfig() with a partial string, in this case "Width 80" or some such thing. The tool can change, parameters can be added or removed, but this will still work as long as the parameter remains "Width" and not, say, "ColWidth". This is perhaps the greatest area of concern. If all terminal tools spell their parameters the same way, then one script will work all tools. But this does limit the movement of some developers, and who decides what the "correct" spelling for some new parameter is? > Another problem has to do with graphics terminals - contrary to the >docs in the CTB stuff, you can not fully implement support for most/all graphics >terminals. Go ahead - try doing a Tek 4014, for example.... Also the question I'm not sure what the problems are here. Could you be more specific. >comes up as to how ana pplication with a scripting language interacts with a >graphics terminal...Can/Should you be able to do something like 'When Pixel is >Green.. or Wait till Square is 10x10?' Or am I out in left field on this one? I'm all ears. > I personally have nothing against the CTB, I think it is an excellent >idea and it is very much like things other have devised like Juri, myself, etc. >I am hoping that future versions will solved some of the above problems (and >others not mentioned) but for a first release I think they did a very good job > Thanks for your vote of confidence. Software design is an iterative process, and we'll do all we can to enhance the heck out of this thing in the future. ======================================================================= Alex Kazim, Apple Computer True. False. On. Off. Come on. Bend a little. =======================================================================