Yes, sdasync is nice, and I wish it was supported universally. I think that the interpreter changes from j6 to j7 should allow sdasync to be implemented in a cross platform fashion, though I do not know if the ide implementations have that in mind or if each ide would have to be modified to support it.
That said, when I was suggesting sockets, I was just suggesting sockets for the need you had specified (and the subject line of this email message) -- determining if the other process was alive. Using sdselect on non-blocking sockets seem like a good approach there. -- Raul On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Ian Clark <earthspo...@gmail.com> wrote: > The first thing that strikes me is that sdasync does not work on my > Mac (though everything else seems to). I see the line: > > if. IFUNIX do. 'not implemented under Unix - please use sdselect' > assert 0 end. > > ...which I take to mean that I'll have to call > sdselect'' periodically to check for data waiting, > as I'm doing with the mapped files. This is > no problem for the task in-hand because the listening process is > already running a duty cycle, and I can slot the sdselect in there. > > But it's a pity in general. The big attraction of sockets for > me is to be able to have process A trigger a callback in > process B. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
