AppServer And SESSION:DISPLAY-TYPE

P

Psk

New Member
I need to start appServer with a "gui" session and i don't know how to configure it.
I need a "Gui" session and now my appServer execute a "tty" session.
I need this to compile programs (to use it in windows pc's) using a program runing in my Server with appServer.
 
You can't.

Appserver is a character client, and DISPLAY-TYPE is read only.

You could compile programs for windows PCs, but all display .r's will be character.
 
I guess you could have the appserver spin off a seperate (eg. prowin -b?) process, but this would be under a different session.

Also, I don't know what DISPLAY-TYPE would be in batch, or if you'd be able to run it without interaction in non-batch mode, haven't tried it.
 
i wrote a short script (.p) that compiles, and quits.

and ran the script using, os-command silent prowin32 -p compile.p, from another char session (-b didn't work).

the compiled r-code worked on gui (why wouldn't it :)) !


i wonder what round table from tugboat, which also uses an appserver to compile, and openedge architect use to compile in the background ?

a quick check in the kb says no to compiling gui with appserver. maybe it was changed in 10.1a ?
 
joey.jeremiah said:
the compiled r-code worked on gui (why wouldn't it :)) !
Click to expand...

Look up error 4438,

eg. P4562, 21068

but I don't know much about this, and may be misunderstanding the context, as I don't use CHUI (ugh).

I'm assuming that as there is not a 1-1 relationship between CHUI and GUI (eg. the infamous dynamic browse), I would expect issues.

However, I don't doubt that automated compiles are normal in many GUI environments, just pointing out the limitations wrt to OPs question.


joey.jeremiah said:
i wonder what round table from tugboat, which also uses an appserver to compile, and openedge architect use to compile in the background ?

a quick check in the kb says no to compiling gui with appserver. maybe it was changed in 10.1a ?
Click to expand...

Don't know, although I would have thought the KB would reflect the enhancement somewhere.

The appserver compile could launch a seperate session, as previously suggested, though I have no idea how either of those products work.
 
KnutHandsome said:
I guess you could have the appserver spin off a seperate (eg. prowin -b?) process, but this would be under a different session.

Also, I don't know what DISPLAY-TYPE would be in batch, or if you'd be able to run it without interaction in non-batch mode, haven't tried it.
Click to expand...

joey.jeremiah said:
and ran the script using, os-command silent prowin32 -p compile.p, from another char session (-b didn't work).

the compiled r-code worked on gui (why wouldn't it :)) !
Click to expand...

Well, prowin32 is running non-batch in a new session, so it is GUI, and will work as expected.

I was pointing out before that a prowin32 session launched from an appserver is running de facto in batch mode, or at least non-interactively, and though I would expect it to compile GUI stuff correctly (which is why I suggested it), I don't know what happens if 'something happens' that you don't expect - does it leave a display window hanging on the server monitor?

May sound like a stupid question to you, but really I don't know - unattended prowin32 to me means batch mode (and concomitant DISPLAY-TYPE).

Launching prowin32 in non-batch mode on a different computer to the client process is not something that makes sense to me, though it may be valid, I'd like to know. :confused:
 
i wasn't referring to your post.

i had no clue about the answer. naturally the first thing i thought of was to try using a batch session

after a few tries i actually got it to work


it's actually an interesting thread, not stupid in any way

my mistake. don't take me seriously, i don't :)
 
joey.jeremiah said:
it's actually an interesting thread, not stupid in any way

my mistake. don't take me seriously, i don't :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant I had no clue as to whether or not my idea of prowin32 causing problems when run 'silently' without -b made any sense.

I realise you were not suggesting any stupidity on my part at any point...

I was taking the opportunity to imply stupidity in my question before anyone else did. :awink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top