>>I see, that's a good reason. But (you know there's always one) is Send() calling Receive()? If not there's no problem.
>>What I meant was exactly the opposite Michel is trying to do:
>>Send() just right after a Receive() (Of course he'd have to trigger the process with a Send() first).
>
>How do you fire the next Send() after Receive()?
>
>Vlad
Inside the Receive()
Alexandre Nobre
Alpha Bytes Computer Corp.
Did you know that there are innocent people dying in East Timor?
It helps if you do...
I suppose you don't need glasses if you're able to read this line
