It is apparently not a web app, right? (If it is, IIS knows how to use a new version, discarding the old version as soon as it has finished all its outstanding requests.)
Not knowing what the program is doing, where it gets the input it's supposed to be processing, what it does with the results, and exactly what "cannot be stopped" means (will someone die if a request isn't processed, or will your company lose $1,000,000?), it's hard to really make a suggestion? After all, if the current program has a bug, is it worse to miss a few requests or to provide the wrong answer to some of them? If you can write a main program that does the work by calling code in another assembly, that main program can (hopefully) be written so that it never has to change. It can have a mechanism (like a file being changed) that tells it that a different assembly needs to be used; the main program can switch to using any new assembly that does the real work (presumably better than the other one), and stop using the old one, at any point. It seems you're sort of trying to do that, but the details of what's being processed etc make a difference. At 09:09 PM 12/20/2005, peter lin wrote (in part) >Dear all, > We develop a system that cannot(better not) be stopped while bug fixed >or rule changed. J. Merrill / Analytical Software Corp =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
