On Aug 19, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Terry Ford wrote:
I don't want any timer to fire
(or re-fire) while one of them is busy.
It sounds to me that you might achieve better control by using just
one RB timer, and have it control a queue of operations.
You could define one class that
- uses just this one timer
- accepts items to be added to the queue (which might result in
changing the timer period)
- calls appropriate methods as their queued items come due
That way you can ensure you have complete control over the priority
and sequencing of your items.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
