Multi stacks = multi processes?
dsc at swcp.com
Sun Jul 28 14:09:01 CDT 2002
On Sunday, July 28, 2002, at 09:48 AM, Rob Cozens wrote (quoting Mike):
>> What I want is to be copying at the same time a file is being
>> read/wrote and still keep an eye on the directories. each process
>> working with different files of course. Normally Rev would not
>> do that. But if I put the different processes in different STACKS
>> or SUBSTACKS? would I be able to get this?
> I think you will need to build separate standalones to attain
> multi processing capabilities in Revolution.
At times this is the right thing, especially when atomic Rev
commands are too big.
However, often one can limit use of commands to only those that
take a short time. The meaning of short depends on your
application. In this case each "process" can be envisioned as
state changes made by simple handlers that finish quickly. These
can be integrated into simple domains of send-in-time cycles; use
both your sends and Revolution callbacks. You can use variables,
properties and event the message list to communicate among these;
no handler is going to be unexpectedly interrupted by another, so
you can use several. You can make these domains or "processes"
modular by making a callback scheme similar to that used by
(If you have trouble with this style, maybe you can pick one
"process" to run all the time and sprinkle it with
wait-with_messages. Choose the one hardest to fit to this style.
I would give the send a try for all, though.)
In the case of handling drop-box files, if the operation on any one
file does not take so long as to affect feedback to a user, I would
consider doing this as a single "process".
More information about the use-livecode