On 1/12/05 9:29 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In a message dated 1/11/05 4:04:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> On 1/11/05 2:04 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> If I've got a shell() call that executes a unix command that takes awhile >> to >>> complete (up to 3 minutes), is there a way to give control back to >> Revolution >>> while it's taking place? >> >> It depends... do you need to get data back from shell or is it purely an >> "execute this command" situation? >> >> >> > This is a unix call for imaging drives, but I have figured out a way to route > the output from that unix call to a text file. My hope was to somehow have > Rev start up the disk imaging call process, get control back immediately, and > have Revolution read that text file every 5 seconds to check on the status. > It's the "getting control back immediately" part that's presently the problem. > Since the same issue occurs when executing the call in Terminal, I know > it's not Rev's fault. I guess I could just use some unix advice on > sublaunching > processes. My understanding is that if you put a "&" after the command for the terminal, it causes it to become asynchronous and immediately return. I haven't tried it yet, though. You'll need to use the "sh" shell, however. Here's where I got that info: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rc/classes/ksh/print_pages.shtml Give it a shot and let us know if it works... Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
