root@yunexus.UUCP (Operator) (04/11/90)
From: mellon@fenris.pa.dec.com (Ted Lemon) >Ideally, though, the user interface should be graphical,... shaffer@net-sun1.nih.gov (Micheal Alan Shaffer) writes: >Actually I think there is a need for both interfaces. Indeed, both are desirable, and the techniques are as old as time (Well, as MIT's Project MAC). You write a set of functions that do the work, and take the configuration parameters and options as parameters. You link a simple line-mode interface to this, with very few features for running on the machine itself. You optionally provide a featurefull front end, to be linked either on the router/whatever if space permits, or via fpc from a dumb unix box. You write an X front-end that uses **the dumb line-at-a-time interface** do the operations from a remote location. A good example is xmh... X does the pretty stuff, mh does the work. --dave (Multics bigot!) c-b