Hey Chip
Thanks for the reply.
My real objection is not the IP variable thing: as stated in other emails,
it’s excluding entire methods, based on any content, and any sub-content just
makes this a terrible implementation in my view.
Think of it like this:
There are some commands that we cannot call during the redraw of a record
listing: like ALERT.
Why didn’t 4D make it such that a record listing cannot call any 4D method that
contains the command ALERT? They didn’t.
I have ALERT is some methods that are called from record listings: but it’s
behind conditions that never invoke the ALERT if I’m in the context of a record
listing.
Regards,
Tony
On 11/4/16, 9:25 AM, "4D_Tech on behalf of Chip Scheide"
<4d_tech-boun...@lists.4d.com on behalf of 4d_o...@pghrepository.org> wrote:
my 2 cents....
If i am to understand correctly, Tony, you and I use IP variables in a
similar manner - we use them (primarily) as 'Konstants'.
I think a possible solution to at least this part of the IP issue is:
- some mechanism that allows us to either easily (as part of 4D not a
plugin/component) either create 'Konstants' (doesn't exist now), or a
means to flag IP vars as constants (basically write once, read many
values). To my thinking this last part could be done via a pair of
database setting/preferences.
set PreFix __ Post Fix __ :: string _______ for IP vars to be
considered as constants.
set IP Constant Method name ___________ to run during startup
This would allow us to use a method (which may call many others) from
which IP constants are given a value. Allow us to flag both for 4D, and
for ourselves which IP vars are contents and should not be changed
(after initialization) during execution. The pre fix/Postfix option is
to allow for personal preference in naming conventions (i.e. add the
var designator to the front or back of the name).
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:36:00 -0500, Tony Ringsmuth wrote:
>> (Peter said) 2. Allowing preemptive code to use interprocess
>> variables with caveat that
> they are not in fact interprocess would be confusing and misleading
(and
> lead to situation that code will behave differently in preemptive and
> standard mode - see next point.)
>
> Tony’s reply:
> In the implementation that I am suggesting, the worker process would
> behave more as if it was running in a batch workstation.
> As a worker process starts up, it could call a method that would see
> that the ~interprocess varialbes~ are not populated, and then
> populate them, if desired.
> Given a choice between absolutely no IP var usage whatsoever, and,
> using IP vars in a different way: I think “using IP vars in a
> different way” would be preffered.
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
