1. [Win] dos boxes
I admit this is asking for really good gravey on my exelent mashed potatoes,
but is it possible to give a dos box in win95 a name in the titlebar other than
"EXW"? Since we can't multitask, i am running 8 interpreter sessions, and
there is no way to tell the monitoring screens apart from one another! The
properties for the dos dox don't offer a clue as to the program the interpreter
is running. If winet crashes, like as if the isp drops out, the first of the 8
programs to notice it will redial, but the 2nd one will apparently start
building
a huge disk swap file, and maybe the 3rd one as well, and the disk thrashing
won't end until i kill off all 8 processes and restart them all,,, cause while i
may be able to see which window display is not updating, i don't know the
name of the process it is displaying, so i don't know which process to
restart! Why don't i use a windoze box? cause i am having this lockup
problem and i don't want to introduce my ignorance of windoze windows
programming into the problem.
Kat
2. Re: [Win] dos boxes
Just a thought but if you were to write a small
windows program that used threads to start each
of the 8 sessions you could control each one seperately?
Ofcourse this would be more for the window guru's among us.
Maybe Matt, Derek, David, PatRat, Al, Robert or
anybody I forgot to mention might know a salution.
Im just now getting into threaded execution myself and see
a whole new deep dark tunnel to bury myself in.
Euman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kat" <gertie at PELL.NET>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 10:56
Subject: [Win] dos boxes
>
>
> I admit this is asking for really good gravey on my exelent mashed potatoes,
> but is it possible to give a dos box in win95 a name in the titlebar other
than
> "EXW"? Since we can't multitask, i am running 8 interpreter sessions, and
> there is no way to tell the monitoring screens apart from one another! The
> properties for the dos dox don't offer a clue as to the program the
interpreter
> is running. If winet crashes, like as if the isp drops out, the first of the 8
> programs to notice it will redial, but the 2nd one will apparently start
building
> a huge disk swap file, and maybe the 3rd one as well, and the disk thrashing
> won't end until i kill off all 8 processes and restart them all,,, cause while
i
> may be able to see which window display is not updating, i don't know the
> name of the process it is displaying, so i don't know which process to
> restart! Why don't i use a windoze box? cause i am having this lockup
> problem and i don't want to introduce my ignorance of windoze windows
> programming into the problem.
>
> Kat
>
>
>
>
>
>
3. Re: [Win] dos boxes
On 30 Apr 2001, at 13:24, Euman wrote:
> Just a thought but if you were to write a small
> windows program that used threads to start each
> of the 8 sessions you could control each one seperately?
How are you threading multiple processes with one exw.exe while doing
calls to winapi functions that don't let you proceed until they return
something? I am using multiple exw.exe's, each of which also spawns a
winoa386.mod and a vm.exw. Until i can get the winapi to.... hmmmmmm,,
just had a thought... what if one of the windoze gurus here wrote an
application,, another wrapper as it were, in a threaded puter language, for us
to pass winapi calls to, and it generated the events to call back into our Eu
code? Would the combination of that wrapper and Eu then make Eu
threaded with only one exw.exe running?
> Ofcourse this would be more for the window guru's among us.
> Maybe Matt, Derek, David, PatRat, Al, Robert or
> anybody I forgot to mention might know a salution.
It was my impression, since i asked about winet generating windoze events
and no one replied, that what i wanted to do wasn't possible. I am extracting
data from webpages, and from what can see, all the winet.dll calls are C
functions, and don't make callbacks. If they did, then i could toss a event at
winet.dll, i do things while it does things, then it triggers an event i have in
my code and i process it. Am i right?
> Im just now getting into threaded execution myself and see
> a whole new deep dark tunnel to bury myself in.
Well, light the candles on the path for us to follow you, k? 
Only way i have found to do it *easily* is to use mirc as the gui and let it
spawn as many exw.exe on multiple ports, talk to them, and kill them off as
needed. I suppose Eu could be the "mother program" as well tho, i just
haven't gotten around to trying it, no free time here.
Kat
> Euman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kat" <gertie at PELL.NET>
> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 10:56
> Subject: [Win] dos boxes
>
>
> >
> >
> > I admit this is asking for really good gravey on my exelent mashed potatoes,
> > but is it possible to give a dos box in win95 a name in the titlebar other
> than
> > "EXW"? Since we can't multitask, i am running 8 interpreter sessions, and
> > there is no way to tell the monitoring screens apart from one another! The
> > properties for the dos dox don't offer a clue as to the program the
> interpreter
> > is running. If winet crashes, like as if the isp drops out, the first of the
> > 8
> > programs to notice it will redial, but the 2nd one will apparently start
> building
> > a huge disk swap file, and maybe the 3rd one as well, and the disk thrashing
> > won't end until i kill off all 8 processes and restart them all,,, cause
> > while
> i
> > may be able to see which window display is not updating, i don't know the
> > name
> > of the process it is displaying, so i don't know which process to restart!
> > Why
> > don't i use a windoze box? cause i am having this lockup problem and i don't
> > want to introduce my ignorance of windoze windows programming into the
> > problem.
> >
> > Kat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
