Eric Iverson wrote: > As far as I know sdasync should work properly in 601. Evidence to the > contrary (either specific to J or for sdasync in general) would be very > interesting.
That is good to know. > That said, I think the use of sdasync should be avoided for non-trivial > applications. It is not portable. And for a serious app it would be > better to seperate the processing of critical information exchange from > the user interface. I find developing with sdasync much easier than without. And, for critical applications, I think it would be better to change the definitions underlying sdasync to remove the interface (making it, in essence, synchronous) than to engineer the application from the start so that the programmer cannot use the interface while developing. Bill Lam wrote: > It refers to J's sdasync not TCP. I had done stress test on sdasync. Which J version? Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
