Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 11.11.2015 17:47, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I have several remarks: a) Your TBaseSingleInstance class contains too many methods. It assumes you are using advancedipc. I refactored TBaseSingleInstance so that it doesn't depend on advancedipc. I suggest refactoring such a way that

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would like to ask you to implement this in custapp.pp. This is useful functionality for all kinds of applications, and is since very long on my todo list. On 30.09.2015 18:50,

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would like to ask you to implement this in custapp.pp. This is useful functionality for all kinds of applications, and is since very long

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 11.11.2015 17:47, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I checked the patch and applied it, so people can try it. I have several remarks: a) Your TBaseSingleInstance class contains too many methods. It assumes you are using advancedipc. I suggest refactoring such a way that advancedipc is in the

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: Thanks, I tested it under OS/2 now. Both the "simple" and "advanced" test programs work, well done! I noticed two issues when running the "advanced" tests, though. First, the server increases the CPU considerably. There seems to be a loop permanently

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: Thanks, I tested it under OS/2 now. Both the "simple" and "advanced" test programs work, well done! I noticed two issues when running the "advanced" tests, though. First, the server increases the CPU considerably. There seems to be a loop permanently

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: Thanks, I tested it under OS/2 now. Both the "simple" and "advanced" test programs work, well done! I noticed two issues when running the "advanced" tests, though. First, the server increases the CPU considerably. There seems to be a loop permanently

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 21 Sep 15, at 14:03, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: . . > Michael Van Canneyt & Tomas Hajny & everybody who wants to test: > > I prepared a fully compatible AdvancedIPC unit. See the attachment. > There is a unit mysimpleipc.pp that should replace the simpleipc.pp in > FPC sources. I renamed it in

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Sat, October 3, 2015 19:59, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: >> Thanks, I tested it under OS/2 now. Both the "simple" and "advanced" >> test programs work, well done! I noticed two issues when running the >> "advanced" tests, though. First, the server increases

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Sat, October 3, 2015 19:54, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: . . > Attached patched for FPC and Lazarus to sync advancedipc.pp. The current > version in FPC trunk is out-dated (the Lazarus trunk version just misses > the AllFilesMask constant). Thanks, I

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 22:47, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Let's first see how Ondrej does it. See the patch attached. A simple demo program is attached as well (SITest.lpr). advancedipc.pp: refactoring MsgID -> RequestID and some smaller issues solved. API hasn't changed. singleinstance.pp: class

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > I am not proposing to make a new class. > I want a property "SingeInstance" in CustApp which activates this > automatically. I had the very same idea when this was discussed a long time ago in Lazarus list.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 14:42, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: OK, I see your point. Yes, I think it is possible and even not that much work to do. I programmed "multiple instances" handling into Lazarus IDE. It's the same like e.g. Adobe Photoshop or VLC player

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Michael, you added the wrong (old) unit from the bug report, not the latest

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Michael, you added the wrong (old) unit from the bug report, not the latest simpleipc-compatible one from the mailing list.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 15:42, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Michael, you added the wrong (old) unit from the bug report, not the latest

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > Juha, I changed the advancedipc.pas unit (this one from the mailing list is > newer than from the bug report). I can prepare a new patch for the bug > report. No need for a new patch if it did not change otherwise. I

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 15:01, Juha Manninen wrote: On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: Juha, I changed the advancedipc.pas unit (this one from the mailing list is newer than from the bug report). I can prepare a new patch for the bug report. No need for a new

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Juha Manninen wrote: On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I am not proposing to make a new class. I want a property "SingeInstance" in CustApp which activates this automatically. I had the very same idea when this was

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > For simpleIPC, yes. But the new implementation has no dependencies except > sysutils, classes. So the argument becomes void. It adds extra code to every application. Maybe not too much though. > ... > That is

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 15:35, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: 1. Using a LCL component means that you must instantiate a form/datamodule first. By that time, a database connection may already have been made (just to name something), which is exactly what

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 15:35, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: 1. Using a LCL component means that you must instantiate a form/datamodule first. By that time, a database connection may already have been made (just to name something), which is exactly what you want to avoid. The check for single

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 13:50, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: You may not think this is important, but for beginners, this can be a tremendous aid. The easier we make it, the better. Lazarus is a RAD environment, after all. Michael. OK, I see your point.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Michael, you added the wrong (old) unit from the bug report, not the latest simpleipc-compatible one from the mailing list.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > Michael Van Canneyt & Tomas Hajny & everybody who wants to test: > > I prepared a fully compatible AdvancedIPC unit. See the attachment. > ... Michael and Tomas, I am planning to copy AdvancedIPC temporarily to Lazarus

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 13:50, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: You may not think this is important, but for beginners, this can be a tremendous aid. The easier we make it, the better. Lazarus is a RAD environment, after all. Michael. OK, I see your point. Yes, I think it is possible and even not that

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Thanks! Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, September 29, 2015 12:30, Juha Manninen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: >> Michael Van Canneyt & Tomas Hajny & everybody who wants to test: >> >> I prepared a fully compatible AdvancedIPC unit. See the attachment. >> ... > > Michael and

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Thanks! Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would like to ask you to implement this in

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Tue, September 29, 2015 12:30, Juha Manninen wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: Michael Van Canneyt & Tomas Hajny & everybody who wants to test: I prepared a fully compatible AdvancedIPC unit. See the

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: 2015-09-29 11:50 GMT-03:00 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara < luizameri...@gmail.com>: It can be used without the component. The component is just a convenience. See the examples

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 10:35 GMT-03:00 Michael Van Canneyt : > > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Juha Manninen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Van Canneyt >> wrote: >> >>> I am not proposing to make a new class. >>> I want a property "SingeInstance"

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: 2. Then it is only available in visually designed applications. Services, website servers and custom console apps are non-visual. I am specificially thinking FastCGI processes. See above I didn't say it could not be done with

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 11:50 GMT-03:00 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara < luizameri...@gmail.com>: > > > It can be used without the component. The component is just a convenience. > See the examples > https://github.com/blikblum/luipack/blob/master/uniqueinstance/testraw/project1.lpr Luiz

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

Unit uniqueinstanceraw Please look carefully Luiz Em 29/09/2015 12:01, "Michael Van Canneyt" escreveu: > > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: > > 2015-09-29 11:50 GMT-03:00 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara < >> luizameri...@gmail.com>: >> >> >>> >>> It

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 29.09.2015 16:09, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Both are OK. Use of one does not exclude use of the other. I was going to add it in CustApp anyway as soon as I had looked at your implementation. I started working on the CustApp variant. It's even simpler than the LCL component because you

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: On the other side, i still think that should be kept out of TCustomApplication. Well, I have already explained why I want it exactly there :) While the simple requirement of checking another instance is easy to implement into

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 16:09, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Both are OK. Use of one does not exclude use of the other. I was going to add it in CustApp anyway as soon as I had looked at your implementation. I started working on the CustApp variant. It's

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: Unit uniqueinstanceraw Please look carefully My sincere apologies, I was too fast and indeed opened the wrong unit. uniqueinstance, and uniqueinstancebase, not uniqueinstanceraw :( So, it could be used as well, if we can sort

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 16:12 GMT-03:00 Michael Van Canneyt : > > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: > > Unit uniqueinstanceraw >> > > >> Please look carefully >> > > My sincere apologies, > > No problem. To be clear, i don't plead to uniqueinstance be used by

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 09/15/2015 12:07 PM, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Tue, September 15, 2015 10:04, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: . . Are there some high level crossplatform semaphore functions in the FCL? The cthreads/cIntSemaphoreOpen etc. seem to be available on unix

[fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have struggled on bugs and missing functionality. Particularly what I found: 1.) BUG: You can register multiple servers on Windows with the same name

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, September 15, 2015 08:58, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > >> I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus >> IDE. For >> this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have >> struggled on bugs and missing

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have struggled on bugs and missing functionality. Particularly what I found: 1.) BUG: You can register

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 15.09.2015 08:58, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have struggled on bugs and missing functionality.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 15.09.2015 08:58, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 15/09/15 13:33, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: This is because Michael Van Canneyt pointed me to "man sem_overview". The first Google search pointed me to http://linux.die.net/man/7/sem_overview where I found the "Named semaphores" with functions sem_open, sem_close etc. with the description that

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 15.09.2015 13:22, Michael Schnell wrote: On 09/15/2015 01:09 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: IPC = Inter PROCESS Communication. I know that you know this, but Ondrej is talking about cthreads in one of his message, so I tried to politely set a trigger. -Michael This is because Michael

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Michael Schnell wrote: On 09/14/2015 03:56 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: 3.) MISSING: Multiple clients (from different processes) talk to one server. 4.) MISSING: Client is able to receive a response on a request. 5.) MISSING: (Optionally, not default) client sends a

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 09/15/2015 01:09 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: IPC = Inter PROCESS Communication. I know that you know this, but Ondrej is talking about cthreads in one of his message, so I tried to politely set a trigger. -Michael ___ fpc-devel maillist -

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, September 15, 2015 10:04, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: . . >> Are there some high level crossplatform semaphore functions in the FCL? >> The >> cthreads/cIntSemaphoreOpen etc. seem to be available on unix only. What >> about >> OS/2? > >

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Tue, September 15, 2015 10:04, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: . . Are there some high level crossplatform semaphore functions in the FCL? The cthreads/cIntSemaphoreOpen etc. seem to be available on unix only.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 09/14/2015 03:56 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: 3.) MISSING: Multiple clients (from different processes) talk to one server. 4.) MISSING: Client is able to receive a response on a request. 5.) MISSING: (Optionally, not default) client sends a request to a server that isn't running. The server is

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On 09/15/2015 02:43 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: With my paranoid mind I of course assumed you were hijacking the thread... Of course I was eagerly waiting on Ondrej to confirm that he was looking for thread support :-) :-) :-) -Michael ___

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Michael Schnell wrote: On 09/15/2015 01:09 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: IPC = Inter PROCESS Communication. I know that you know this, but Ondrej is talking about cthreads in one of his message, so I tried to politely set a trigger. With my paranoid mind I of