Darrin Barr wrote: > Bill, Appreciate the quick response. I thought about Win32::Process but ran > into a different issue. > > * Since I don't know how long the parent is going to be processing (anywhere > from 3 minutes to several hours), the child can't be allowed to time out. > I'll kill everything manually if the parent seems to have hung...
So don't time it out then. > * I am trying to limit the # of processes on the system (part of what's > being monitored), so starting another one for the "child" is less desirable > than using fork fork is kludged on Win32 - use at your own risk. > * I need to let the child know when the parent's processing is done so it > can write out some summary statistics to a file. Killing the child prevents > that. That's why I was using a signal to communicate with the child. If I > use Win32::Process, the signal never makes it to the child (not sure why, > yet). There is no signal mechanism on Win32 - some of the logic is also kludged to allow something similar. My guess is that with threads, they have a better signal emulation due to the fact that it's the same process. You'll get more uniform processing without the fork, but signaling will be a problem - better to poll from the child after each sleep and check a semaphore or ?. -- ,-/- __ _ _ $Bill Luebkert Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (_/ / ) // // DBE Collectibles Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] / ) /--< o // // Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/ -/-' /___/_<_</_</_ http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff) _______________________________________________ Perl-Win32-Admin mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
