> The problem with the daemon approach is making sure the daemon is alive
Too right, @Joe. As I said in my (discarded) reply to Raul: …with all the attendant problems for the client of finding out: have you finished yet? -- are you alive? -- are you actually installed? -- and package it all up for general release, with no requirement for customer customization, and be transparent to the user. The "user" in this case being a novice J programmer, who is basically a novice in any form of programming. Why are you and I the only J-ers who see this? :-) On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Joe Bogner <[email protected]> wrote: >> However, my "silly" solution (suggested earlier) is indeed robust – >> and I've just been doing experiments on this: >> >> $ jconsole -js a=.23 b=.3 "echo a*b" "exit''" >> > > Thanks for elaborating > > Looks like a solid, simple solution to me. I wouldn't touch the > sockets unless there was too much overhead in getting J back to the > state desired to execute against (e.g. loading a large file) > > I've also used the 'silly' solution with J in a webapp awhile back to > avoid mucking around with sockets and threads. > > The problem with the daemon approach is making sure the daemon is alive > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
