Karel, I updated MICO from darcs and compiled with and without threads enabled. (I had to add a few ifdef checks around some code requiring thread libraries.) I noticed that nsadmin from the disabled threads build would fail with a BAD PARAM message when interacting with the nsd from the threaded build so I think there are issues with compiling without threads right now.
I'm looking at specifying the SINGLE_THREAD_MODEL as well within Combat to see if I can use the multi-threaded build. Thanks, Rob On 12/2/2015 3:12 PM, Karel Gardas wrote: > Hi Rob, > > is it possible for you to duplicate the issue on MICO HEAD while using > multi-threading IRd and single-threaded MICO ORB for Combat? Basically > speaking you will need to do two builds in independent directories, but > there is quite a load of changes done since 2011 so it's most important > if you are able to duplicate on HEAD or not. > > Thanks, > Karel > > On 11/27/15 11:19 PM, Rob Ratcliff wrote: >> Hi Karel, >> >> The version of MICO I am working with is from December 2, 2011. I tried >> the most recent version from darcs, but I cannot load IDL into the >> Interface Repository without an error if it is not compiled with thread >> support. (With threading support enabled, it works fine, but I haven't >> tested Combat with that version with the POA's SINGLE_THREAD_MODEL >> threading policy enabled yet.) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rob >> >> >> On 11/27/2015 1:42 PM, Karel Gardas wrote: >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> obvious question is what MICO exactly do you use, on which platform >>> (OS/compiler versions). By MICO version I mean either release number >>> or what is your last patch in darcs repo if you use repo. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Karel >>> >>> On 11/27/15 07:56 PM, Rob Ratcliff wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> We've noticed recently that calls to _non_existent() are coming back >>>> true even when the remove object is active and the communication thread >>>> on the remove is blocked for a period due to it being busy with tasking. >>>> (We are currently running MICO single threaded currently due to using >>>> Combat.) I am going to try moving long running tasks to another thread >>>> in the object, but is there a configurable timeout parameter or some >>>> other parameter that would impact the behavior of the _non_existent() >>>> call? (I only saw a timeout related to messaging if that was enabled.) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mico-devel mailing list >>>> Mico-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mico-devel >>>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Mico-devel mailing list Mico-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mico-devel
