Chipp,
The software I linked to allows you to run Python with Rev. This
means that you can simply get "the result" frokm the Python script,
just like with AppleScript and any other OSA language. This makes the
callback unnecessary.
If you still need a callback, you could call the script that runs the
Python script with "send in 0 millisecs" and directly after that run
a repeat loop with messages. The repeat loop can poll for the file
that contains the result of the Python script. When the file is
there, continue the handler and return the contents of the new file.
function foo
put empty into myData
send "doYourPythonStuff" to me in 0 millisecs
put 0 into myCounter
repeat until (there is a file x) or (myCounter > 100)
wait 100 millisecs with messages
add 1 to myCounter -- at most 10 secs
end repeat
if there is a file x then
open file x
read from file x until eof
close file x
put it into myData
delete file x
end if
return myData
end foo
Now, the user of your libraries only needs to call the foo() function.
Best,
Mark
--
Economy-x-Talk
Consultancy and Software Engineering
http://economy-x-talk.com
http://www.salery.biz
Get your store on-line within minutes with Salery Web Store software.
Download at http://www.salery.biz
Op 28-feb-2007, om 22:19 heeft Chipp Walters het volgende geschreven:
Thanks Mark,
My issue though isn't with Python, but rather how to create an slick
interface callback system for Rev.
The idea being I would really like to be able to implement in my
library, in process function calls such as:
put getThisThing() into t1
put nowGetAnotherThing() into t2
without the developer having to implement a messy callback structure.
Not sure if this is even possible.
(Or if anyone else could describe a different type of way for handling
callback 'in process'?)
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
