Re: 4gl development question

Mike Aubury <mike.aubury@aubit.com> wrote in message news:<421502d7$0$8750$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>... > I may be way off - but can you use shared libraries rather than > executables ? > > > Once you've linked the application - that still gives you the chance to > change just those libraries without a complete recompile etc. > > > Using c4gl... > > > mylib.4gl : > > function inc(a) > define a integer > return a+1 > end function > > > myprog.4gl : > > main > define a integer > let a=inc(1) > display a > end main > > > > > $ c4gl --shared mylib.4gl -o libmylib.so > $ c4gl -o myprog myprog.4gl -L. -lmylib> > > > > > Not that it will help - but Aubit4GL allows calls to shared libraries > directly without even linking them to your program (notation is similar to > perl) : > > > > $ 4glpc -as-dll mylib.4gl -o mylib.so > > myprog.4gl: > main > define a integer > let a=mylib::inc(1) > display a > end main > > $ 4glpc myprog.4gl -o myprog > $ ./myprog> 2 > > > > > > > Neil wrote: > > > The way our 4gl application has evolved we make use of system calls to > > execute other programs rather than linking in that functionality > > directly to the calling program. > > > > For example this leads to the following type of code > > > > program1: begin work > > ....... > > commit work > > run "program2" > > begin work > > ....... > > commit work > > > > with the transactions being commited prior to the call to avoid locking > > difficulties. > > > > This has worked (made to work) but has never been ideal as we should > > really have a single transaction. > > > > Now we have a requirement to keep the work in a single transaction I was > > wondering if there is an elegant way of having two 4gl programs > > effectively share the same connection (and transaction). My fallback is > > to rework the code and link in the appropriate modules but this will > > lead to bigger executables, more maintenance and will take some time to > > achieve ... I'd rather not do this. > > > > My thinking was that I could use esqlc to replace the system call in > > program1 and the main module of program2. This would involve binding the > > programs together via sockets, passing the named connection from > > program1 to program2, setting the connection within program2 and > > fgl_start program2. > > > > I'm sure this problem has been seen before so the big questions are is > > this approach doable and what are there alternatives ? > > > > Regards > > Neil Hi And, I can suggest you ... why not write the other parts in STORED PROCEDURES ?? BR Ferro