[comp.sys.amiga.tech] Clean way to kill AUX: cli

sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (06/13/89)

    Is there a clean (IE: approved) method of closing an AUX: CLI ?!?

	I know "endcli" will close it via the serial port, but what I need
	is a way to close it from a different CLI....

	Sneakers

--
                                      ___
    Dan "Sneakers" Schein            ////          BERKS AMIGA BBS
    Sneakers Computing              ////   80+ Megs of software & messages
    2455 McKinley Ave.      ___    ////         12/2400 Baud - 24 Hrs
    West Lawn, PA 19609     \\\\  ////              215/678-7691
                             \\\\////
    {pyramid|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers   

lfk@uts.amdahl.com (Lynn Kerby) (06/14/89)

Prior to Commodore's AUX: handler, the AUX: handler I used supported
the following to close the port:

	echo >AUX:endcli "endcli"

I have not tried this with Commodore's handler, but it might work.
I don't think it was necessary to echo the string "endcli", the
real key was the redirection to AUX:endcli.

-- 
     Lynn Kerby  -  Amdahl Corporation
                    Sunnyvale, CA
                    ...amdahl!lfk
		    lfk@uts.amdahl.com

Disclaimer: Any and all opinions expressed herein are my own and do not
            necessarily represent the views of anyone, especially my
            employer.
 

boucher@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Marc Boucher) (06/14/89)

In article <8588.AA8588@heimat> sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes:

>    Is there a clean (IE: approved) method of closing an AUX: CLI ?!?

	I think killing the CLI task with Xoper1.3 will do it.


-- 
  Marc Boucher      delete ?MS* ; VMS, CMS, MS-DOS      Phone: 514/466-8932

  AmiNet    amimarc!postmaster        | Bitnet    UUQRL0@POLYTECA
  UUCP      ...!killer!jolnet!boucher | Internet  boucher@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US

bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) (10/24/89)

I don't intend to start another hyper-extended round of resource-tracking
discussions, but I would like to pose a small(?) question.  If one were to
keep track of process resources, what would one be keeping track of, aside
from memory, message ports, file locks, and, perhaps, semaphores?  I've not
really given this much thought, but I would like to know what the scope of
full resource tracking is.

I don't want this post to precipitate more 'we can't do that on the Amiga.'
replies;  I'm not debating that.  I'm just wondering what everyone wishes
they could have the OS tracking for them... (aside from the aforementioned).
It might be best if responses were emailed to me, since this is an old topic.
Thanks for the enlightenment in advance.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Bevis  (bevis)				     "But I don't like spam!" |
| en.ecn.purdue.edu / ei.ecn.purdue.edu	     Give me Amiga or nothing at all. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+