honey@down.FUN (10/25/84)
System V based versions of uucp (that includes you-know-what) achieve the same goal, in a different way. Whenever a C.whatever is opened for processing, cico peeks to see if there is a corresponding A.whatever file; if so, an integer is read from the A. file and that many lines are skipped in the C. file. After completing the transaction on a given line of the C. file, the line number is written into the A. file. I'm not saying this is any better than what Lee suggests, but it suffices. I know I would be reluctant to write in the C. file. On the other hand, I believe Lauren uses Lee's scheme. Peter
honey@down.FUN (10/25/84)
I guess you're suggesting that uucp try to keep exactly one command file per site. I see no real advantage to this approach. By using a separate command file for each transaction, the job-id for a given request can be derived from the name of the corresponding command file. Some people actually use the job-id given by uustat and by the -mfile options of uux and uucp. At least one version of uucp even gets it right! Peter
lee@west44.UUCP (Lee McLoughlin) (11/02/84)
In article <> honey@down.FUN writes: >I guess you're suggesting that uucp try to keep exactly one command >file per site. I see no real advantage to this approach. >... NO! I'm not suggesting a single C. file per site, such a scheme would be *VERY* difficult to manage. For example you would have to reuse old entries in some way in order to keep the file to a suitable length, imagine all the problems that brings! All I wanted to do was to skip entries that have already been done. Some of the sites who use my uucp are V7 sites and I must work to my lowest common denominator so I cannot simply use a Sys5 based uucp. Nor can I borrow the features of such a version since its probably infringing licensing. So I'm forced, reluctantly, to re-invent them. -- UKUUCP SUPPORT Lee McLoughlin <UK>!ukc!lmcl kcl-cs!lee "What you once thought was only a nightmare is now a reality!"
honey@down.FUN (11/03/84)
Sorry for the confusion, Lee -- that note was a reply to Chris' reply to your note, not to your base note. I hope you received my reply to your note. Peter