Rick McGuire wrote:
> I'm not sure this question makes any sense.  An interaction on an
> object occurrs in the context of where the interaction is triggered.
> Objects are just data, and have no knowledge of where they have been
> created.  If one instance stores an object in .environment (generally
> a bad practice), then it is just an object that's available for any
> instance.  It will remain alive until the global Rexx environment is
> terminated.
The reason for asking is this: if having multiple
RexxInterpreterInstances running for different Java objects, and if one
wishes to allow Java to interact with proxy Rexx objects (in the JNI
layer), do I have to use the cached RexxInterpreterInstance (in the JNI
layer) from which the proxied Rexx objects come from originally, or is
it o.k. to use any present RexxInterpreterInstance to attach to and then
forwarding the Rexx proxy object messages from Java.

This is about contemplating of allowing Java to interact with Rexx
objects in a general way (not only for event handlers) and sending them

If I understood your answer correctly, then it does not matter which
RexxInterpreterInstance I would use to send messages to cached (in the
JNI layer) Rexx objects. (Also assuming, that once all
RexxInterpreterInstances got terminated, no such invocation should be
allowed anymore, but throw an exception.)


Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited
royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing 
server and web deployment.
Oorexx-devel mailing list

Reply via email to