On 07.12.2015 20:56, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Interesting point! From this point-of-view I don't have to create the
connection layer between SimpleIPC and AdvancedIPC as me&you
suggested here:
http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/2015-September/035958.html
It makes sense.
Well
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:
On 07.12.2015 20:00, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote:
On 6 December 2015 at 08:29, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:
If you don't persist in using SimpleIPC, there is also AdvancedIPC that
uses
the same approach (temporary f
On 07.12.2015 20:00, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote:
On 6 December 2015 at 08:29, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:
If you don't persist in using SimpleIPC, there is also AdvancedIPC
that uses
the same approach (temporary files) across all targets and so it
behaves
co
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote:
On 6 December 2015 at 08:29, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:
If you don't persist in using SimpleIPC, there is also AdvancedIPC that uses
the same approach (temporary files) across all targets and so it behaves
consistently.
I think SimpleIPC and AdvancedIPC c
On 6 December 2015 at 08:29, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:
> If you don't persist in using SimpleIPC, there is also AdvancedIPC that uses
> the same approach (temporary files) across all targets and so it behaves
> consistently.
I think SimpleIPC and AdvancedIPC complement each other. SimpleIPC
uses nati
