> >I have a FOR NEXT which is going like this.
> >
> >FOR lnCompteur=1 TO 100
> > Send('Something')
> > ...
> >NEXT
> >
> >The Send() method is sending a string to a server. This sent string will
> make the server send a reply back which will arrive in a Receive() event.
> >
> >I can't continue with the second FOR NEXT loop until the Receive() event
> has fired. So, for each 100 send, I need to wait for the Receive() event to
> loop and continue with the next send.
> >
> >I tried this but this was locking the CPU and the Receive() event was
> never fired.
> >
> >FOR lnCompteur=1 TO 100
> > Send('Something')
> > llReady=.F.
> > * We assume the Receive() event will make llReady=.T.
> > DO WHILE NOT llReady
> > ENDDO
> >NEXT
This may be similar to a common loop in the days of 2.6:
do while not rlock()
enddo
This loop would constantly hit the server asking for record locks. The
server got so busy denying locks that it appeared to be frozen to all
users. The solution was a tip that I published a few months ago:
if not rlock()
do while (not rlock()) and (inkey(.1)=0)
enddo
endif
This may be the same type of thing with your Receive() function. Try
adding the INKEY() delay to the DO WHILE loop.
/Paul
--
Paul Russell
Software Kinetics Ltd. | Phone: (902) 481-4582 Fax: (902) 468-3679
201 Brownlow Avenue | Office: Paul.Russell@SofKin.ca
Dartmouth | "The best evidence that time travel will never
be
Nova Scotia, Canada | possible is that we have not been invaded by
B3B 1W2 | hordes of tourists from the future." - S.
Hawking
"Use technology because it's appropriate -- except in the case of 'Java'
then just use it 'cause it's cool!" - Paul Russell
