Mihai, In response to the statement below:
>> I also wrote to Mr. Phil Wade, but so far (in the last 24 hours) I >> did not get a response. >> I find this experience to be both unpleasant and worrisome. Below is the email that I sent you yesterday. Neither customer support or myself have received any response from you since. I believe that your representation of the facts should be clarified as you have brought this into a public forum. My email to you is copied below. Regards Phil ------ Begin Copied Message From: Phil Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:23:56 +1000 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Writing code for Witango 5 ( Witango-Talk: Multi Request Safety ) Mihai, > I have also addressed this issue to customer support, which suggested me to > pay for tech support. This is clearly a misunderstanding since I am not > looking for help with coding or debugging but proper documentation. I strongly > feel that there are legitimate questions regarding inadequate and erroneous > documentation; and this should be addressed free of charge. I have spoken to the customer support team and read your original email and they are correct in their response. Your request was not for configuration and installation support. It is debateable whether you are asking for programming support or not. In regards to the erroneous documentation please let me know the page and section and I will have it corrected and we will correct it free of charge. In regards to inadequate documentation, our documentation is about the meta language and witango configuration and installation. The choice of how to build a critical section in an application is up to the the programmer and is dictated by the type of functionality that is being implemented and is an architectural and design issue. It seems that you should be reading about the coding theory on the many ways to create a critical section which is not relevant in our documentation. Most requests about critical sections we have looked at have been resolved by a better design in the code and has removed the need for a critical section in the code > 1- can you provide an example of code (solving a similar problem as the one > addressed) in which competing requests to the same resource exclude each other > without crashing or hanging? What you are asking for is a peer review of your code and then for a matching example to be provided. Without the purchase of a support request or a support contract this is not possible. Programming support is charged at AU$300 per incident. > 2- can you provide documentation on how to implement such a mechanism? Looking at your code quickly you have your critical sections in the wrong place. It should be in the tcf as this is where the writing to the file is which is the critical section. You also have calls to the writetextfile method that are not even checking to see if the file has been locked by another request and hence do not even understand that a critical section has been created. I would actually suggest writing to separate files with names associated to the ID and writing an index file that contains the names of the files. Then you know that each file has only the information you need in the order you need it and you do not need any critical section at all. Regards Phil ------ End Copied Message > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 15 May 2004 5:21:28 AM >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Witango-Talk: Tread Safety in Witango 5 !? >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Hi all, >> >> Six weeks ago I purchased the upgrade from Tango 2000 (which I happily >> used for four years) to Witango. >> >> After reading everything that was posted in terms of thread safety, >> multitasking, locking, etc. in the talk group, I decided to let the >> code "speak". I have written a test which I attached ( along with >> explanations, source code, and results as played on my PC). It is as >> simple as it gets and I believe it makes the point that Witango 5 is >> not thread -safe. All I want is to have somebody show me where I >> go wrong. Is there a working alternative? >> >> This test works fine on the same computer under Tango 2000, but does >> not do so under Witango 5. >> >> Apart from the change Tango2000 to Witango 5, everything is the same >> (hardware, operating system, and code). The obvious conclusion is that >> the W5 made the difference. This is why I would have expected to get >> some explanations on how to handle the new server either in the >> documentation or on the website. >> >> I could not find any such information anywhere, so I wrote to Witango, >> asking for the missing information and a working example. Their >> response was to pay for tech support. >> I also wrote to Mr. Phil Wade, but so far (in the last 24 hours) I >> did not get a response. >> I find this experience to be both unpleasant and worrisome. >> >> I am now stuck between Tango 2000, which is obviously outdated, and >> Witango 5, which does not seem to work. >> I would greatly appreciate any help I can get from any of you. >> >> Many thanks, >> Mihai Olariu >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> San Jose, CA >> 408-887-5223 >> >> >> >> >> > >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> _ >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf > ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
