From: "Stephen Kellett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Freeman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >I must admit I had not read you post properly last time round. Are you > >suggesting that it could be possible to have a version of abcm2ps that could > >watch itself and terminate itself if it did get out of control? I wouldn't > >have the first clue where to start but if that sort of idea is feasible, I > >am intrested. > > Yes, entirely possible. How you'd do it would depend on the operating > system. If it was Windows I could do it for you trivially. If it was > Unix I'd have to dust off some books and do some research.
I presume that this approach would have a new thread within abcm2ps? And perhaps something that if I ever decided to upgrade abcm2ps, I'd be able to compile/link in myself using a make file to save troubling others? If I am understanding this correctly, I'm very interested in giving it a try and seeing how it works out. I believe I'm on Windows 2000 Server and may get upgraded to 2003. > > Then Phil Taylor writes: > >It might be simpler to just kill the program after a short period of > >time every time it's used. In this application where only single tunes > > are being processed the program should have finished and quit in > > less than a second, so if you can add something to the script to kill it after > >five seconds that should do the job. > Yes, if that is the invocation pattern, that approach is fine. I wasn't > sure if abcm2ps used in this context stayed around waiting for another > request. I think 5 seconds may be a bit on the low side. If the shared > server just happened to get a lot of work at the same time the user of > abcm2ps may get they valid job dumped too soon. Again, please forgive my ignorance... abcm2ps is called from a php script but if I am understanding things correctly, I'm not sure I like this idea. It seems to me that either one would be calling up a separate program each time abcm2ps was called up or in some way committing my script to keep running for X seconds where under normal circumstances it would be done in < 1 second. Maybe I am reading this wrongly but to me it sounds as if although it may protect me from the occasional disaster, usually, I'd likely to tying up more resources for longer. Jon To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
