I've looked up Filer_Run in PRM 2-502 but I'm not clear on the scope of the restrictions.
I've got an application with a very common structure: an application directory whose name begins with !; in the directory are, among others, a !Run file, and a BASIC RunImage file. I need the BASIC to run a separate application with the same structure. Is it OK for the first RunImage to OSCLI "Filer_Run !TheSecondApp"?
The PRM says "You can only use this command from within the desktop environment or...", which is nicely general, but worryingly so.
I've written a test app that does exactly as I describe, and it works. Is it really OK, or have I just been lucky?
In message <e225dbac50.davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> Dave Higton <davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> I've looked up Filer_Run in PRM 2-502 but I'm not clear on the scope > of the restrictions. > I've got an application with a very common structure: an application > directory whose name begins with !; in the directory are, among > others, a !Run file, and a BASIC RunImage file. I need the BASIC to > run a separate application with the same structure. Is it OK for > the first RunImage to OSCLI "Filer_Run !TheSecondApp"?
Yes. As long as you give a full pathname for !TheSecondApp, of course.
> The PRM says "You can only use this command from within the desktop > environment or...", which is nicely general, but worryingly so.
Nothing worrying about it. It means what it says: This only works in the Wimp environment. That does not mean that the program issuing the command must be a Wimp task, just that the desktop environment must be active - which is practically always the case nowadays, unless you run a single-tasking program that never returns to the Wimp, but in that case, you would not be much interested in launching another Wimp app anyway. The reason is simply that the Filer remembers the file and runs it when it receives control from the Wimp the next time and that will only happen in the Wimp environment.
> I've written a test app that does exactly as I describe, and it > works. Is it really OK, or have I just been lucky?
It is OK. You just need to bear in mind that this is delayed execution. So, the following sequence will not work: * Create ObeyFile * Filer_Run ObeyFile * Delete ObeyFile (after all, we have dealt with it, haven't we?) * ... do more things and eventually return control to the Wimp
Doing so will cause an error "ObeyFile not found" to be displayed by the Filer.
Martin -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/ ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier spamt...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
> In message <e225dbac50.davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> > Dave Higton <davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > I've looked up Filer_Run in PRM 2-502 but I'm not clear on the scope > > of the restrictions. > > I've got an application with a very common structure: an application > > directory whose name begins with !; in the directory are, among > > others, a !Run file, and a BASIC RunImage file. I need the BASIC to > > run a separate application with the same structure. Is it OK for > > the first RunImage to OSCLI "Filer_Run !TheSecondApp"?
> Yes. As long as you give a full pathname for !TheSecondApp, of course.
> > The PRM says "You can only use this command from within the desktop > > environment or...", which is nicely general, but worryingly so.
> Nothing worrying about it. It means what it says: This only works in > the Wimp environment. That does not mean that the program issuing the > command must be a Wimp task, just that the desktop environment must be > active - which is practically always the case nowadays, unless you run > a single-tasking program that never returns to the Wimp, but in that > case, you would not be much interested in launching another Wimp app > anyway. The reason is simply that the Filer remembers the file and > runs it when it receives control from the Wimp the next time and that > will only happen in the Wimp environment.
> > I've written a test app that does exactly as I describe, and it > > works. Is it really OK, or have I just been lucky?
> It is OK. You just need to bear in mind that this is delayed > execution. So, the following sequence will not work: > * Create ObeyFile > * Filer_Run ObeyFile > * Delete ObeyFile (after all, we have dealt with it, haven't we?) > * ... do more things and eventually return control to the Wimp
> Doing so will cause an error "ObeyFile not found" to be displayed by > the Filer.
> On 19 Oct, 22:41, Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote: > > In message <e225dbac50.davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> > > Dave Higton <davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > > I've written a test app that does exactly as I describe, and it > > > works. Is it really OK, or have I just been lucky?
> > It is OK. You just need to bear in mind that this is delayed > > execution. So, the following sequence will not work: > > * Create ObeyFile > > * Filer_Run ObeyFile > > * Delete ObeyFile (after all, we have dealt with it, haven't we?) > > * ... do more things and eventually return control to the Wimp
> > Doing so will cause an error "ObeyFile not found" to be displayed by > > the Filer.
> OK, Martin, my thanks to you yet again!
The solution I've used, in a multitasking BASIC application, is to have all my Wimp_Poll handling in one procedure, and to call this after every Filer_Run, like so:
> The following bytes were arranged on 20 Oct 2009 by davehigton : >> On 19 Oct, 22:41, Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote: >>> [...] So, the following sequence will not work: >>> * Create ObeyFile >>> * Filer_Run ObeyFile >>> * Delete ObeyFile (after all, we have dealt with it, haven't we?) >>> * ... do more things and eventually return control to the Wimp
>>> Doing so will cause an error "ObeyFile not found" to be displayed by >>> the Filer.
>> OK, Martin, my thanks to you yet again! > The solution I've used, in a multitasking BASIC application, is to have > all my Wimp_Poll handling in one procedure, and to call this after every > Filer_Run, like so: > OSCLI "Save ObeyFile" > OSCLI "Filer_Run ObeyFile" > PROCpoll > OSCLI "Delete ObeyFile" > For the Filer to Filer_Run something it needs to have control passed to > it first.
Unfortunately, you have no guarantee that the Filer is passed control if you call Wimp_Poll once. The only guarantee you have is that your application only gets a Null event after all events of higher priority have been delivered to all tasks. This is why calling Wimp_Poll once as part of the data transfer protocol is enough: you are waiting for a response to a user message, which has high priority.
Here, you do not know which kind of event is involved at the Filer's end. It could be a Null event, in which case it could be possible that your task is called with a Null event again without the Filer having been given control inbetween.
Martin -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/ ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier spamt...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
Dave Higton <davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > I've looked up Filer_Run in PRM 2-502 but I'm not clear on the scope > of the restrictions.
> I've got an application with a very common structure: an application > directory whose name begins with !; in the directory are, among > others, a !Run file, and a BASIC RunImage file. I need the BASIC to > run a separate application with the same structure. Is it OK for > the first RunImage to OSCLI "Filer_Run !TheSecondApp"?
Why not issue: OSCLI("WimpTask Run <TheSecondApp>")
and get it done in a separate task.
If you have a problem with variable resolution:
OSCLI("Do WimpTask Run <TheSecondApp>") ?
If you actually know that the file to be run is an Obey file, speed things up a bit with:
OSCLI("Do WimpTask Obey <TheSecondApp>.!Run")
-- Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply to newsreply...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "nnn" by "284".
> > I've looked up Filer_Run in PRM 2-502 but I'm not clear on the scope > > of the restrictions.
> > I've got an application with a very common structure: an application > > directory whose name begins with !; in the directory are, among > > others, a !Run file, and a BASIC RunImage file. I need the BASIC to > > run a separate application with the same structure. Is it OK for > > the first RunImage to OSCLI "Filer_Run !TheSecondApp"?
> Why not issue: OSCLI("WimpTask Run <TheSecondApp>")
> and get it done in a separate task.
> If you have a problem with variable resolution:
> OSCLI("Do WimpTask Run <TheSecondApp>") ?
> If you actually know that the file to be run is an Obey file, speed things > up a bit with:
> OSCLI("Do WimpTask Obey <TheSecondApp>.!Run")
Thanks, Jeremy, but the point has become moot, as I've been able to write and test a proper app that doesn't require this.
In message <4AE213D6.40...@druck.freeuk.com> on 23 Oct 2009 druck wrote:
> Dave Higton wrote: > > In message <4ADE2BA7.6030...@druck.freeuk.com> > > druck <n...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> Please don't quote all the past messages just to add one line at the > >> end, it's an annoying waste of everyone's time.
> > I'm getting a bit irked by your postings in this vein. /You/ are > > wasting /our/ time, not to mention your time typing them.
> Well buck your ideas up then, you have been here long enough not to need > telling.
I had been tempted to get involved in this thread before, but refrained. I agree with Dave Higton that your "net police" postings can get a bit irritating for the rest of us and I'm disappointed in this rude reply to Dave who is one of our most valued contributors.
Could you perhaps alter the subject line when you send such postings to add something like "[etiquette]", "[net police]" or whatever, so that we can all set up filters to remove these things from sight.
Alternatively, could you consider posting your (excellent, it has to be admitted) advice on Usenet style privately to the offending poster off-list?
The standard of posting on Acorn newsgroups is usually pretty good, and it may well be that we have to thank druck for this in his single-handed efforts, but I would like to state my agreement with Dave Higton that the postings can be quite annoying to the rest of us if they come too frequently. Limit yourself to one a week, perhaps? That should be enough for other offenders to get the idea!
Matthew Phillips <mn...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > The standard of posting on Acorn newsgroups is usually pretty good, > and it may well be that we have to thank druck for this in his > single-handed efforts, but I would like to state my agreement with > Dave Higton that the postings can be quite annoying to the rest of us > if they come too frequently. Limit yourself to one a week, perhaps? > That should be enough for other offenders to get the idea!
I find them less annoying than the things he's complaining about; at least I don't have to scroll through pages of quoted text to find his complaint.
Matthew Phillips <mn...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[replying to Druck]
> I had been tempted to get involved in this thread before, but refrained. I > agree with Dave Higton that your "net police" postings can get a bit > irritating for the rest of us
I'm a member of the group called "the rest of us" and Druck's posts don't annoy me, FWIW - it's what Druck replies to with such posts that do annoy me.
I'd add that when the problem is excessive quoting, I'm more likely to delete the post without reading and move to the next if the new text is off my screen - and I suspect I'm not alone in that. If I'm right, then the rule of thumb is don't quote too much if you want to be read.
Dave's quoting that Druck complained about didn't actually push the new text off my screen, but nobody can predict which machine (at what resolution) I or anyone else will be using.
> and I'm disappointed in this rude reply to Dave who is one of our most > valued contributors. > Could you perhaps alter the subject line when you send such postings to > add something like "[etiquette]", "[net police]" or whatever, so that we > can all set up filters to remove these things from sight.
That won't work. It'll work in that those who don't want to see such posts won't, because they'll filter them out. The problem is that the type of person who needs to be told will probably also filter them out - especially once they've seen such a reply in response to one of their own posts.
> Alternatively, could you consider posting your (excellent, it has to be > admitted) advice on Usenet style privately to the offending poster > off-list?
I thought Druck did do this in the past, only posting here when the email address was crud - but Dave's address looks perfectly valid. Perhaps Druck's changed his policy after receiving too many bounces from stupid spamtraps.
> Matthew Phillips <mn...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> [replying to Druck]
> > I had been tempted to get involved in this thread before, but refrained. > > I agree with Dave Higton that your "net police" postings can get a bit > > irritating for the rest of us
> I'm a member of the group called "the rest of us" and Druck's posts don't > annoy me, FWIW - it's what Druck replies to with such posts that do annoy > me.
Er, me too...
I wouldn't personally bother posting as Druck does, but I certainly don't mind that someone does so on my behalf (as it were).
[snip]
> > Alternatively, could you consider posting your (excellent, it has to be > > admitted) advice on Usenet style privately to the offending poster > > off-list?
> I thought Druck did do this in the past, only posting here when the email > address was crud - but Dave's address looks perfectly valid. Perhaps > Druck's changed his policy after receiving too many bounces from stupid > spamtraps.
ISTR that the howls of protest from some people at getting 'quiet reminders' as to netiquette put an end to this policy.
In message <4AE213D6.40...@druck.freeuk.com> druck <n...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> Dave Higton wrote: > > In message <4ADE2BA7.6030...@druck.freeuk.com> > > druck <n...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> Please don't quote all the past messages just to add one line at the > >> end, it's an annoying waste of everyone's time.
> > I'm getting a bit irked by your postings in this vein. /You/ are > > wasting /our/ time, not to mention your time typing them.
> Well buck your ideas up then, you have been here long enough not to need > telling.
Your ideas of net policing were appropriate to the early 1990s, when everybody had a slow connection and each word had a significant cost. Times have changed. Every posting is delivered in a small fraction of a second, at a marginal cost of zero or something so tiny that it might as well be zero.
So, contrary to what you so rudely say, /you/ should buck your ideas up to 2009. Your mindset seems to be stuck a long time in the past.
And get ready for 2010 - it's not long away.
And another thing: you subscribed to this, and other, newsgroups. In doing so, you implicitly accepted that you were going to read lots of stuff that was not relevant to you. You have no grounds to complain about each piece that you'd prefer not to bother with.
It's a good argument for top posting - that way you don't have to scroll down to see the reply.
In message <298926af50.Matt...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> Matthew Phillips <mn...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Alternatively, could you consider posting your (excellent, it has to be > admitted) advice on Usenet style privately to the offending poster > off-list?
Oh, he does that, too. The trouble is that he does it from an account that doesn't accept replies, therefore it isn't possible to argue with him - except by taking the discussion to a public forum. In that case one would be repeating private correspondence in public, which would be bad netiquette.
Which really means that it's Dave Ruck who is guilty of bad netiquette.
Some people wrote: > Please don't quote all the past messages just to add one line... > I'm getting a bit irked by your postings in this vein... > Well buck your ideas up then... > It's a good argument for top posting...
Boy, am I glad I don't read any of the other Acorn newsgroups any more.
Dave Higton wrote: > In message <298926af50.Matt...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> Matthew > Phillips <mn...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Alternatively, could you consider posting your (excellent, it has >> to be admitted) advice on Usenet style privately to the offending >> poster off-list?
> Oh, he does that, too. The trouble is that he does it from an > account that doesn't accept replies,
All my accounts accept replies.
> therefore it isn't possible to argue with him - except by taking the > discussion to a public forum.
Perhaps the argument for quoting entire messages and adding a single line isn't powerful enough to make it past my content filters.
> Which really means that it's Dave Ruck who is guilty of bad > netiquette.
Really, wow.
> Who'd have thought it?
I could mention something about whit at this point, or at least half of one. :-)
> Dave Higton wrote: > > In message <298926af50.Matt...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> Matthew > > Phillips <mn...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Alternatively, could you consider posting your (excellent, it has > >> to be admitted) advice on Usenet style privately to the offending > >> poster off-list?
> > Oh, he does that, too. The trouble is that he does it from an > > account that doesn't accept replies,
> All my accounts accept replies.
> > therefore it isn't possible to argue with him - except by taking the > > discussion to a public forum.
> Perhaps the argument for quoting entire messages and adding a single > line isn't powerful enough to make it past my content filters.
> > Which really means that it's Dave Ruck who is guilty of bad > > netiquette.
> Really, wow.
> > Who'd have thought it?
> I could mention something about whit at this point, or at least half of > one. :-)
Just quit your whining, whingeing and time-wasting. Try making a positive contribution to RISC OS. It's years since you did.
Dave Higton <davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > Just quit your whining, whingeing and time-wasting. Try making > a positive contribution to RISC OS. It's years since you did.
What, you mean like exhibiting and helping running shows, providing technical support for exiting customers, and policing here?
It smells strongly like you've only posted this so you can antagonise by yet again not snipping. And thinking it's about the bytes is just short-sighted.
In message <20091025214756.2a16b...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net> Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:26:09 GMT > Dave Higton <davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > Just quit your whining, whingeing and time-wasting. Try making > > a positive contribution to RISC OS. It's years since you did.
> What, you mean like exhibiting and helping running shows, providing > technical support for exiting customers, and policing here?
I'll pass on the first two because I don't know if he does anything. As for policing: I think he's a hindrance rather than a help.
> It smells strongly like you've only posted this so you can antagonise > by yet again not snipping. And thinking it's about the bytes is just > short-sighted.
I'm reacting because I'm fed up with his attempts at policing, which waste a lot of time, bandwidth and "nervous energy". I don't want to let him get away with it.
Dave Higton <davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > It smells strongly like you've only posted this so you can > > antagonise by yet again not snipping. And thinking it's about the > > bytes is just short-sighted.
> I'm reacting because I'm fed up with his attempts at policing, which > waste a lot of time, bandwidth and "nervous energy". I don't want > to let him get away with it.
A moment ago, you were claiming bandwidth did not matter. And I think I spend more time scrolling pointlessly to the bottom of badly-trimmed mails than I do reading Dave's bitchings.
I have no idea what "nervous energy" is, but it sounds like something one might hear about on Living TV.
In message <20091026004700.4900f...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net> Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> A moment ago, you were claiming bandwidth did not matter. And I think > I spend more time scrolling pointlessly to the bottom of badly-trimmed > mails than I do reading Dave's bitchings.
I'm not complaining about waste of bandwidth; I really don't mind at all. I'm pointing out Dave Ruck's faulty logic; he /did/ complain of wasted bandwidth, but then proceeded to waste more bandwidth himself, in part directly by his clumsy, irritating attempts at net-copping, in part by the argument that he inevitably stirs up.
Dave Higton <davehig...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > A moment ago, you were claiming bandwidth did not matter. And I > > think I spend more time scrolling pointlessly to the bottom of > > badly-trimmed mails than I do reading Dave's bitchings.
> I'm not complaining about waste of bandwidth; I really don't mind at > all. I'm pointing out Dave Ruck's faulty logic; he /did/ complain > of wasted bandwidth, but then proceeded to waste more bandwidth > himself, in part directly by his clumsy, irritating attempts at > net-copping, in part by the argument that he inevitably stirs up.
So bandwidth doesn't matter, then it does, then it doesn't? If druck's efforts are a success, which I truly hope they are, then we'll all be saved time and sanity.
|
