Experienced a similar thing a while back and decided to use NAP as well. Even
went as far as changing the NAP depending on how long the period of inactivity
has been.
Sample code:
LASTTIME = TIME()
FOUND.CMD = @FALSE
LOOP
UNTIL FOUND.CMD DO
ELAPSED = TIME() - LASTTIME
GOSUB SET.NAP.TIME
IF TIME() - LASTTIME GT QUIT.TIME THEN STOP (or exit or whatever is
best for you)
INPUTIF TCL.CMD THEN FOUND.CMD = @TRUE ELSE NAP NAPTIME
REPEAT
*------------
SET.NAP.TIME:
*------------
* Minimise looping by NAPing before doing the next INPUTIF check.
* Set NAP time as an increasing amount depending on the period of
* inactivity
BEGIN CASE
CASE ELAPSED LT 60
NAPTIME = 100 ; * Up to 1 min, pause for 0.1 seconds
CASE ELAPSED LT 300
NAPTIME = 200 ; * Up to 5 mins, pause for 0.2 seconds
CASE ELAPSED LT 600
NAPTIME = 500 ; * Up to 10 mins, pause for 0.5 seconds
CASE ELAPSED LT 900
NAPTIME = 1000 ; * Up to 15 mins, pause for 1 second
CASE 1
NAPTIME = 2000 ; * More than 15 mins, pause for 2 seconds
END CASE
RETURN
Brendon
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of HENDERSON MIKE, MR
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October 2010 8:31 AM
To: U2 Users List
Subject: Re: [U2] INPUTIF statement in Universe {Unclassified}
I.E., add the line with "NAP" in it.
You may want to try different NAP intervals to work out the best balance
between snappy user response and CPU usage.
________________________________________________________
OK = 0 ; START.DT = DATE() ; START.TM = TIME(); TIME.OUT = 900 LOOP
INPUTIF PSN THEN OK = @TRUE ELSE
NAP 100 ; Doze 100 milliseconds = 1/10 sec
OK = ((DATE()-START.DT)*86400)+TIME()-START.TM > TIME.OUT
IF OK THEN
IF EDIT.FLG THEN PSN = '' ELSE PSN = 'Q'
END
END
UNTIL OK DO
REPEAT
__________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October 2010 10:14 a.m.
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [U2] INPUTIF statement in Universe
In a message dated 10/26/2010 11:58:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> In testing, it's the INPUTIF statement that's utilizing the CPU, not
the
> timer calculation.
>
> Is there a better, less CPU intensive way to do this?
>
> Thanks in advance. >>
>
INPUTIF checks the type-ahead buffer every time slice. You're getting
so
many slices that your CPU is consumed with this one task of checking the
type-ahead buffer. It's frenetic, a CPU on crystal meth.
In the old days, we would say Release Timeslices RQM. Today you can
solve
that issue as well, by adding a Sleep for a 1 second. On systems that
allow
sleeping for periods less than a second, you only really need to add a
sleep for a tenth of a second, to see your CPU suddenly quiesce.
Will Johnson
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
