Oops - Pete's right, the main sub-program should not be dynamic, to save
working storage variables. A calling program or sub-program can pass base
names between dynamic subroutines. The main point is that the process that
opened the databases stays alive. The method of passing the database names
that Pete describes is the way to go.
An earlier post states that mpe cannot fork. You can "fork" using a C
program, but this creates a sub-process. Each sub-process has to have it's
own database opens. I never got around to testing which process limits
apply to sub-processes or are total for the parent process, since we limit
the app to 3 sub-processes.
I hope this helps.
Joan
"Pete Vickers"
<pete@GUI-INNOVA To: [log in to unmask]
TIONS.COM> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] IPC communication
"HP-3000 Systems with database parms problem
Discussion"
<[log in to unmask]
UTC.EDU>
02/01/2002 08:47
AM
Please respond
to "Pete
Vickers"
Hi Peter,
in the original subroutine, make it a subprogram, and open the databases in
that one. With it being a subprogram as opposed to dynamic, the
working-storage values are retained.
Then pass the data base name(s) in the call to the next routine.
The database id will be carried in the first two bytes, and you will be
able to issue image calls.
Hope I have understood the problem correctly, and that this helps
Pete
"Burgess Peter" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:a3drmk0247r@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Hi
>
> Happy new year to everyone !
>
> I have an issue and I am not sure that I am addressing it properly
because
> it does not work.
>
> I have a subroutine which is being called by an RPC program , this
routine
> calls another funtion which requires some open database's. I dont want to
> open the two databases everytime I call this function. So what I did was
> write another program which opened up the databases and fed the open
names
> into a message file.
>
> The message file is then read by the sub routine when it is started up ,
the
> only problem with this is that it does not work. Is this because the open
> process is owned by the original program. If so what would be the best
way
> of doing this ?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Regards
>
> Peter Burgess
> www.microwarehouse.co.uk
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
