RE: xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

["Ian Lowe" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ahhh, interesting question - I had assumed that the majority of
development would be applications (just for historical reasons) rather
than services.

All of my PCs run in the config you describe - a hub service and several
non service applications

If we focus on services having this behaviour that's a different thing,
I guess, as it's easier to mandate that all services support the
mutex... (I'm assuming it can be done in regular C++ ?)

Ian.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Van den Panhuyzen [mailto:tomvdp@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 30 November 2004 19:20
To: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ukha_xpl] xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta


Hi Ian,

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:27:07 -0000, Ian Lowe <ian@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
<snip>
> Like Mal, I'd rather see an absolutely Bulletproof tested and solid
> hub running as a windows service, rather than relying on various
> implementations within apps.

Maybe you've got a point here.  Would this configuration exist anywhere:
an xPL Hub (as service) + windows applications (not service) ?

I did make the assumption that xPL apps using xPL Lib would be running
as services, not as regular windows applications.

If a user has xpl windows applications and no xpl services then it is of
course better to have a dedicated hub...  It seems rare to me.

I suggest the following amendment:
- give the developer the possibility to prohibit their app to be hub
- advice developers to do so in case their app is not a service

Regards,
Tom