On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:51:02 -0500 Antoine Latter <aslatter@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> wrote:

...

Hi all, I have two handles where I get stdout resp. stderr from a command output.

Is it possible to merge those two handles so that I get a new input handle in a way that data can be read from the new handle whenever it is available from either of the two original handles?

Does what you're doing strictly need to be a handle?

One thing you could try is is using an IO Channel: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/base/latest/doc/html/Control-Con...

Hmm, not quite sure. I was asking about handles because I use:

(_ ,Just hout ,Just herr ,p) <- createProcess (proc cmd parms) {    std_out = CreatePipe,    std_err = CreatePipe  }

which gives me handles to deal with.

You could create the pipe yourself, and then call 'createProcess' with 'UseHandle' instead, passing the same handle to both std_out and std_error. On a unix-y system you can do this with the functions in System.Posix.IO. I'm not sure what you would do on windows. This might be a good question to open up to a wider audience on the haskell-cafe mailing list. Antoine

It probably has to do more with parenthesis than anything: forever $ atomically $ readTchan chan >>= print forever $ (atomically $ readTchan chan) >>= print That might work. Once you get the types to line up, that should work. On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:14:26 -0500 Antoine Latter <aslatter@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> wrote:

...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:51:02 -0500 Antoine Latter <aslatter@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> wrote:

...

Hi all, I have two handles where I get stdout resp. stderr from a command output.

Is it possible to merge those two handles so that I get a new input handle in a way that data can be read from the new handle whenever it is available from either of the two original handles?

Does what you're doing strictly need to be a handle?

One thing you could try is is using an IO Channel: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/base/latest/doc/html/Control-Con...

Hmm, not quite sure. I was asking about handles because I use:

(_ ,Just hout ,Just herr ,p) <- createProcess (proc cmd parms) {    std_out = CreatePipe,    std_err = CreatePipe  }

which gives me handles to deal with.

You could create the pipe yourself, and then call 'createProcess' with 'UseHandle' instead, passing the same handle to both std_out and std_error.

On a unix-y system you can do this with the functions in System.Posix.IO.

I'm not sure what you would do on windows. This might be a good

I'm on a Linux system. Don't use Windows.

Thanks for pointing to this. In the meantime I found something similar in the online book "Real World Haskell". So I have something to try out.

-- Manfred

_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

The problem is the "forever" in the main thread. It never has a way to know that the two threads have died, but the stm knows that the other two channels have disappeared, so they no longer block, and this causes a busy loop. So check this out. I would have rather done it with a state monad to count the number of threads I spawn and then wait for the appropriate number of messages to arrive, but this way works too. This is one of those cases where datatypes are awesome. Now the thread passes back either a line to be printed, or it tells the parent thread that it has nothing left to print. That way the main thread knows exactly when to die. Also, if you are going to be making command line scripts, I highly recommend the cmdargs package on hackage, as it is pretty cool for doing commandline arguments in a safe way. {-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-} module Main where import GHC.Conc.Sync import System.IO import System.Environment import System.Process import Control.Monad import Control.Concurrent.STM.TChan import Control.Exception.Base import Text.Printf import Prelude hiding (catch) data Message = MString String | ImDone makeThread :: Handle -> TChan Message -> IO ThreadId makeThread handle chan = forkIO $ (loop `catch` (\(e :: SomeException) -> writeDone chan)) where loop = do msg <- hGetLine handle writeMsg chan msg loop writeMsg chan msg = (atomically . writeTChan chan) $ MString msg writeDone chan = (atomically . writeTChan chan) ImDone issueCmd :: String -> [String] -> IO () issueCmd cmd parms = do (_ ,Just hout ,Just herr ,_) <- createProcess (proc cmd parms) { std_out = CreatePipe, std_err = CreatePipe } chan <- newTChanIO :: IO (TChan Message) makeThread hout chan makeThread herr chan printCmd chan printCmd chan where printCmd chan = do msg <- atomically (readTChan chan) case msg of MString msg -> do putStrLn msg printCmd chan ImDone -> return () main :: IO () main = do args <- getArgs let cmd = head args let parms = tail args issueCmd cmd parms print "Done" On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:10:36 -0400 David McBride <dmcbride@neondsl.com> wrote:

...

It probably has to do more with parenthesis than anything:

forever $ atomically $ readTchan chan >>= print forever $ (atomically $ readTchan chan) >>= print

That might work.  Once you get the types to line up, that should work.

Thanks for the hint. I finally got it compiled and almost working.

The code is now like this:

{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}

import GHC.Conc.Sync import System.IO import System.Environment import System.Process import Control.Monad import Control.Concurrent.STM.TChan import Control.Exception.Base import Text.Printf import Prelude hiding (catch)

makeThread :: Handle -> TChan String -> IO ThreadId makeThread handle chan = forkIO $  forever    (do eof <- hIsEOF handle        unless eof $ hGetLine handle >>= atomically . writeTChan chan)                            `catch` (\(e :: SomeException) -> return ())

issueCmd :: String -> [String] -> IO () issueCmd cmd parms = do  (_ ,Just hout ,Just herr ,_) <- createProcess (proc cmd parms) {    std_out = CreatePipe,    std_err = CreatePipe  }  chan <- newTChanIO :: IO (TChan String)  _ <- makeThread hout chan  _ <- makeThread herr chan  forever $ atomically (readTChan chan) >>= printf "%s\n"

main :: IO () main = do  args <- getArgs  let cmd = head args  let parms = tail args  issueCmd cmd parms  print "Done"

If I run this with a command the command's output will be printed but after that the program is hanging, and top shows 100% cpu usage. "Done" will never be printed.

Any idea what I have to add to prevent it from hanging?

-- Thanks, Manfred

_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

The IO Channel antoine recommended is a very elegant solution to this. main = do let cmd = ..., parms =... (_ ,Just hout ,Just herr ,p) <- createProcess (proc cmd parms) chan <- newTChanIO :: IO (TChan String) makeThread hout chan makeThread herr chan forever $ atomically $ readTchan chan >>= print makeThread handle chan = forkIO $ forever $ do hGetLine handle >>= atomically (writeTchan chan) I haven't run this code, but this is the general idea that I've used many times. The threads run taking input from their sources and shoving it down the channel. The main thread continually reads messages from the channel and blocks while it waits for new messages to arrive. On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:51:02 -0500 Antoine Latter <aslatter@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> wrote:

...

Hi all, I have two handles where I get stdout resp. stderr from a command output.

Is it possible to merge those two handles so that I get a new input handle in a way that data can be read from the new handle whenever it is available from either of the two original handles?

Does what you're doing strictly need to be a handle?

One thing you could try is is using an IO Channel: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/base/latest/doc/html/Control-Con...

Hmm, not quite sure. I was asking about handles because I use:

(_ ,Just hout ,Just herr ,p) <- createProcess (proc cmd parms) {    std_out = CreatePipe,    std_err = CreatePipe  }

which gives me handles to deal with.

-- Manfred

_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners