Bhaskar, Thanks for the info. See below
On 8/29/05, K.S. Bhaskar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin -- > > In response to the first implicit (e.g., Do PQR^XYZ for a routine that > is not currently linked in the process address space) or any explicit > request to access a routine (e.g., ZLink "XYZ"), GT.M will search for > that routine as specified by the $ZROutines search path, compile the > routine if needed (if the .o file is older than the corresponding .m > file), bring it into the process virtual memory and link it into the > process address space. [Tangential side note for the technically > curious: if the routine is placed in a shared library on Proprietary > UNIX platforms where this is supported by GT.M, or in a shared .EXE file > on OpenVMS, GT.M still links it into the process address space, but the > virtual memory is shared and so overall memory usage is more efficient > than GT.M on x86 GNU/Linux.] So is this virtual memory maintained by by GT.M for its various processes. Or is this something that is done at a Linux level? When a processess is JOB'd off in GT.M, I think it is given a separate process ID. But I assume that GT.M is coordinating it somehow. On the other hand, maybe this is more detail than I need to know. > ... > > But let's change the topic. Why are you changing code in a production > environment? In order to maintain a robust production environment, it > should be "locked down" and there should be a somewhat formal process of > change control by which changes are migrated from a testing environment > to a production environment. It is not generally recommended to change > code in a production environment as that code is being used, just as it > is not considered a good idea to flush the radiator when driving your > car. Well, I took the original source file and backed it up. So I could recover from an error. And I felt that if I had introduced a terrible error, that the error trap could catch it. And I felt that the chance of introducing a bad error were small, because I was just removing a printout of time (while leaving the date) of a report. But your point is well taken. It would be better to have a practice system. I guess I could have two such systems on the same server -- or would I need a separate server. I am still used to Windows and it's registry that requires "installation". But I think with GT.M, it is just a matter of putting the code into a directory and then executing it. So I guess I could have a separate code base in a separate directory. But I wouldn't want them both listening on the same port for CPRS connections. Thanks Kevin ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
