On Wednesday 30 October 2002 07:21 am, Greg Turner wrote: > On Monday 28 October 2002 04:56 am, Jürgen Schmied wrote: > > > 2a) Should the rpc.c "real" test be the client or the server? > > > I can imagine races either way. Let's say rpc.c is the client. > > > > Why not let one process start both (client and server). This > > process could control both and kill them later... > > ... or have one executable which can act as supervisor, client or > > server depending on a command line switch. If started without a > > switch act as supervisor and start itself again twice with > > different switches... > > > > juergen > > --- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this is also a possibility, but doesn't this create the need for even more IPC? the big open issue is: how do the test results get back to the actual test program? obviously there are many ways to do it; but doesn't separating things like this just make it harder? Actually, I was leaning towards the idea of having the test program itself be both client and server... but AFAIK there is no wine-compatible way to fork()..? -- gmt "The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" --President Bill Clinton, MTV interview, 1993