[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: runtime IDL, blocking widgets
- Subject: Re: runtime IDL, blocking widgets
- From: marc <m_schellens(at)hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:14:11 +0900
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.idl-pvwave
- Organization: Institute of Physical & Chemical Research (RIKEN) Saitama,Japan
- References: <39266A53.F1A4FB@hotmail.com> <MPG.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Xref: news.doit.wisc.edu comp.lang.idl-pvwave:19723
David Fanning wrote:
> marc (email@example.com) writes:
> > As I understood now (after posting this question some time ago),
> > blocking of widgets behave like this:
> > A blocking base blocks when started 'from within' a nonblocking base.
> > the next blocking base started from within the blocking base did not
> > block any more. To get the blocking behaviour (i.e. xmanager did not
> > return till top level base is destroyed) you have to use modal bases.
> > So far so nice.
> > I have a program wich starts nonblocking (a), then starts a blocking
> > base (b) and from within this invokes another GUI program (c).
> > Now the problem: When I run this stuff in runtime IDL, it seems that
> > there are no non blocking bases. So the former blocking base (b) blocks
> > no longer.
> > But when I make (b) modal, I cannot use (c) anymore!
> > So is there a solution other than restructuring the program?
> > Can I get back the behaviour of interactive IDL in runtime IDL?
> > Is this a buck in runtime IDL?
> A run-time version of IDL is--by definition--a blocking
> program. :-) That is, there is no IDL command line, hence
> the top-level *IS* blocking. A modal widget can't call a
> modal widget and have events generated. So, you are out of
> luck. I think your only hope is to restructure the program.
> Sorry. :-(
> David Fanning, Ph.D.
> Fanning Software Consulting
> Phone: 970-221-0438 E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
> Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
Uhhh that sucks.
I don't see the need for that, if a program runs under runtime IDL,
the command line could also be only 'hidden'.
Strange that a program behaves different depending upon the used