On 16/7/00 3:48 pm, Sivakatirswami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, fine, but can someone explain the two different behaviours in more
> explicit terms? Is there a way to go to the cached stack more directly? One
> would rather not have to globals or keep having to query the cachedURLs,
> although that is certainly doable if it is the only way. Is stack "Portal"
> in memory or not? Is the http "cache" in a different place in MC's heap
> space? Or is it placed in a ram sector outside of MC's heap space? The
> second issue (besides direct access to open the stack from memory) being how
> far can you go with this before you better make sure you start unloading
> some URL's .
Are you sure the destroyStack of that stack is false? I am not getting this
behaviour here. Make sure you are trying to load the stack using its short
name, not its file path (your script suggested perhaps you weren't using the
short name). It should still be in memory so my guess is that you haven't
refered to the stack correctly.
Regards,
Kevin
> Hinduism Today
>
> Sivakatirswami
> Editor's Assistant/Production Manager
> www.HinduismToday.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.runrev.com/>
Runtime Revolution Limited (formerly Cross Worlds Computing).
Tel: +44 (0)131 672 2909. Fax: +44 (0)1639 830 707.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
