send ___ to me in ___ sec

[Klaus Major]

Hi Dar and all,

>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 03:20 AM, Jan Schenkel wrote:
>
>> I'd actually be much more inclined to lock messages
>> during a lengthy process, just to make sure the user
>> doesn't accidentally fire that lengthy process a
>> second time.
>
> The TD describes this as preventing card change messages from being 
> called during a card transition.
>
> What would be handy is a lock of some sort that one can use to cause 
> all GUI events (including keyboard) during the lock period to be 
> ignored.  Is there something like that?  Something close?
>
>> Also, in order to avoid data-race problems like in
>> Java's threaded environment, it's better if the
>> pending messages are handled first, and the gui events
>> afterwards.
>
> Oh, I wasn't complaining.  I don't mind which way, but if I'm making 
> stacks, I need to know which way it is.  I think it is fine this way.  
> It is good to know I can send in time 0 and know it will be executed 
> before GUI events and I can take advantage of that.
>
> My only concern, which I amended from "only one event" to "some events 
> lost" in later mail, is that some events are lost.  If that can happen 
> in general and is not a temporary feature on OS X, then I would like a 
> way to lock out the queueing of gui events; they are no longer useful.
>
> (I should note that I don't think I have ever seen the first event 
> lost, so in very short, that is, fast, handlers, I wouldn't be 
> concerned.)
>
> Dar Scott

during this (loooong ;-) thread i have never seen "lock messages" or 
"set the lockmessages to true" in all the mails...

Maybe this could be of some use ?

Well, maybe not... ;-)

Best


Klaus Major
k_major at osnabrueck.netsurf.de