Hi Given the current restrictions, we're currently not in a position to contemplate Preemptive. Of course we'll be working on our code to move towards it.
But what I just don't get is why 4D thinks that putting compiler _errors_ in for this feature instead of just warnings, is a great idea. 4D has made the compiler check and error on a lot of things where it _can_ check, but why bother stopping you from compiling when the compiler can't check everything anyway? Runtime errors will be generated if offending code happens to execute. These runtime checks are already in place for cases like dereferencing pointers to IP variables, surely. Also consider EXECUTE METHOD (a thread safe command, apparently) - the compiler obviously can't check what code this command might execute. The main issue we'll face with attempting to get our code to be thread safe will be IP Arrays. Our IP arrays are static (in that they are populated on server startup) and without them performance would be very badly degraded. I'm encouraged by the discussion here of a new type of semi-static array concept that could be populated at startup - as long as:- 1. Static arrays could be accessed (but not updated) from cooperative processes 2. Static arrays could be updated at times other than startup during development when running in interpreted mode (and hence there are no pre-emptive processes) Sorry Tony, I also dislike the idea of IP variables being copied into new preemptive processes. Best regards Keith White Synergist Express Ltd, UK. ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **********************************************************************
