On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 08:08:36PM +0100, hw wrote: > Hi, > > I don't understand why you involve a terminal emulator in the process. > Do you need to see the data that goes through the COM port displayed > in a terminal (like minicom)?
People interact with the (remote) application by means of the terminal emulator. Things get sent to/from the printer based on escape sequences initiated by the application. In the original (proprietary) application, the dispatching functionality is integrated in the terminal emulator, so it is understandable that pheoebus phoebus wants to keep that structure in the replacement. I proposed splitting off the "mux" functionality from the terminal emulator functionality, but I fully understand that phoebus phoebus favours the more "conservative" approach. By the way -- back then (TM), when terminals were real things, it was not unheard of that they came with an attached printer and some bar code scannery -- all handily multiplexed over the RS-232 (or something more monstruous), orchestrated via intricate escapery. So the thing is just a natural evolution dating back to The Dinosaurs. Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
