From: CVBruce <cv...@gm...> - 2011-06-08 16:47:06
|
I can see from a recent bug report, that until the world is all 64 bit that there will be cases where one might like to install both 32 and 64 bit versions of oorexx on a server for concurrent execution. Currently to my knowledge this can't be done because there can only be one active rxapi server process. The only thing that is stopping from running multiple rxapi processes, is that there is only one port 10010. What if we request a second port, say 10011, and designate that 32bit oorexx use 10010, and 64bit oorexx use 10011. Would this allow multiple rxapis to run on a single server? I thought I would toss this out as a conversation starter. Thanks, Bruce p.s. Would we need to request a third port, for 128bit oorexx in the future? |
From: Mark M. <mie...@gm...> - 2011-06-08 17:19:09
|
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:46 AM, CVBruce <cv...@gm...> wrote: > I can see from a recent bug report, that until the world is all 64 bit that there will be cases where one might like to install both 32 and 64 bit versions of oorexx on a server for concurrent execution. Currently to my knowledge this can't be done because there can only be one active rxapi server process. > > The only thing that is stopping from running multiple rxapi processes, is that there is only one port 10010. > > What if we request a second port, say 10011, and designate that 32bit oorexx use 10010, and 64bit oorexx use 10011. Would this allow multiple rxapis to run on a single server? That would probably work, to a degree. On Windows you would still run into a problem with the path. Whichever ooRexx installation (32-bit or 64-bit) was first in the path would always run. There are ways to set things up to work around that, but the average Windows user would not be able to deal with it, from what I've seen. The average Windows user in RexxLA would be helplessly confused. It would be very easy to set up two different command shell windows, one for 64-bit and one for 32-bit. Then, if you ran everything from the command prompt, you could open one command prompt for 64-bit ooRexx programs and another one for 32-bit programs. Doubling clicking on Rexx programs in Explorer would not work though. Here you could write a short program to manipulate the system PATH, and switch the path according to what ooRexx you wanted to run, 32-bit or 64-bit. But it wouldn't be seamless and you'd need to remember what program types you were about to run. -- Mark Miesfeld |
From: CVBruce <cv...@gm...> - 2011-06-08 17:47:04
|
I agree with your comments about average users. That's why I specifically directed my comments to servers, like in IT production shops. One could, in such a situation, rename the executables to rexx and rexx64 or some such thing, as well as play with the path etc. I also don't understand why this is such a big problem. It seemed that the MVS linker didn't have that much problem with mixing 24bit and 31bit programs. Are these problems also happening on other operating system (other than windows), or do I just hear more windows problems because windows is ubiquitous. Bruce On Jun 8, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Mark Miesfeld wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:46 AM, CVBruce <cv...@gm...> wrote: > >> I can see from a recent bug report, that until the world is all 64 bit that there will be cases where one might like to install both 32 and 64 bit versions of oorexx on a server for concurrent execution. Currently to my knowledge this can't be done because there can only be one active rxapi server process. >> >> The only thing that is stopping from running multiple rxapi processes, is that there is only one port 10010. >> >> What if we request a second port, say 10011, and designate that 32bit oorexx use 10010, and 64bit oorexx use 10011. Would this allow multiple rxapis to run on a single server? > > That would probably work, to a degree. On Windows you would still run > into a problem with the path. Whichever ooRexx installation (32-bit > or 64-bit) was first in the path would always run. > > There are ways to set things up to work around that, but the average > Windows user would not be able to deal with it, from what I've seen. > The average Windows user in RexxLA would be helplessly confused. > > It would be very easy to set up two different command shell windows, > one for 64-bit and one for 32-bit. Then, if you ran everything from > the command prompt, you could open one command prompt for 64-bit > ooRexx programs and another one for 32-bit programs. > > Doubling clicking on Rexx programs in Explorer would not work though. > Here you could write a short program to manipulate the system PATH, > and switch the path according to what ooRexx you wanted to run, 32-bit > or 64-bit. But it wouldn't be seamless and you'd need to remember > what program types you were about to run. > > -- > Mark Miesfeld > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content > authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image > Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oor...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel |
From: David A. <dav...@gm...> - 2011-06-08 20:13:05
|
This is also a problem on all *nix machines. David Ashley On 06/08/2011 12:46 PM, CVBruce wrote: > I agree with your comments about average users. That's why I specifically directed my comments to servers, like in IT production shops. One could, in such a situation, rename the executables to rexx and rexx64 or some such thing, as well as play with the path etc. > > I also don't understand why this is such a big problem. It seemed that the MVS linker didn't have that much problem with mixing 24bit and 31bit programs. Are these problems also happening on other operating system (other than windows), or do I just hear more windows problems because windows is ubiquitous. > > Bruce > On Jun 8, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Mark Miesfeld wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:46 AM, CVBruce<cv...@gm...> wrote: >> >>> I can see from a recent bug report, that until the world is all 64 bit that there will be cases where one might like to install both 32 and 64 bit versions of oorexx on a server for concurrent execution. Currently to my knowledge this can't be done because there can only be one active rxapi server process. >>> >>> The only thing that is stopping from running multiple rxapi processes, is that there is only one port 10010. >>> >>> What if we request a second port, say 10011, and designate that 32bit oorexx use 10010, and 64bit oorexx use 10011. Would this allow multiple rxapis to run on a single server? >> That would probably work, to a degree. On Windows you would still run >> into a problem with the path. Whichever ooRexx installation (32-bit >> or 64-bit) was first in the path would always run. >> >> There are ways to set things up to work around that, but the average >> Windows user would not be able to deal with it, from what I've seen. >> The average Windows user in RexxLA would be helplessly confused. >> >> It would be very easy to set up two different command shell windows, >> one for 64-bit and one for 32-bit. Then, if you ran everything from >> the command prompt, you could open one command prompt for 64-bit >> ooRexx programs and another one for 32-bit programs. >> >> Doubling clicking on Rexx programs in Explorer would not work though. >> Here you could write a short program to manipulate the system PATH, >> and switch the path according to what ooRexx you wanted to run, 32-bit >> or 64-bit. But it wouldn't be seamless and you'd need to remember >> what program types you were about to run. >> >> -- >> Mark Miesfeld >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content >> authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image >> Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Oorexx-devel mailing list >> Oor...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content > authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image > Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oor...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel > -- David Ashley ooRexx Development Team |
From: Jacques B. <jcq...@ya...> - 2011-06-08 21:57:01
|
Hi all. Just a little clarification about MVS which can run programs in 24 or 31 bits addressing. When an MVS addressing was extended from 24 to 31 bits, some flags have been defined to indicate to the loader the addressing mode (24 or 31 bits) and the residency mode below or above 16MB. Theses flags are set when the load module is built and stored in the executable libray. The default was such that old programs could run and only new or recompiled programs would exploit the 31 bits addressing capabilities. Of course high level languages compilers as well as interpreters such as TSO/REXX have been updated to generate modules that can take advantage of the extended addressing. Assembler programs have been updated manualy to run in extended addressing mode. Regards, Jacques Bouchard La difficulté de votre business n'exclut pas ma bonne humeur GPS: N49 22 04.8 E0 05 02.1 Dom.(SFR) +33 (0)2 14 09 61 14 GSM: +33 (0)6 87 75 74 55 ________________________________ De : David Ashley <dav...@gm...> À : Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List <oor...@li...> Envoyé le : Mer 8 juin 2011, 22h 12min 53s Objet : Re: [Oorexx-devel] 32 & 64 bit running on the same system This is also a problem on all *nix machines. David Ashley On 06/08/2011 12:46 PM, CVBruce wrote: > I agree with your comments about average users. That's why I specifically >directed my comments to servers, like in IT production shops. One could, in >such a situation, rename the executables to rexx and rexx64 or some such thing, >as well as play with the path etc. > > I also don't understand why this is such a big problem. It seemed that the MVS >linker didn't have that much problem with mixing 24bit and 31bit programs. Are >these problems also happening on other operating system (other than windows), or >do I just hear more windows problems because windows is ubiquitous. > > Bruce > On Jun 8, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Mark Miesfeld wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:46 AM, CVBruce<cv...@gm...> wrote: >> >>> I can see from a recent bug report, that until the world is all 64 bit that >>>there will be cases where one might like to install both 32 and 64 bit versions >>>of oorexx on a server for concurrent execution. Currently to my knowledge this >>>can't be done because there can only be one active rxapi server process. >>> >>> The only thing that is stopping from running multiple rxapi processes, is that >>>there is only one port 10010. >>> >>> What if we request a second port, say 10011, and designate that 32bit oorexx >>>use 10010, and 64bit oorexx use 10011. Would this allow multiple rxapis to run >>>on a single server? >> That would probably work, to a degree. On Windows you would still run >> into a problem with the path. Whichever ooRexx installation (32-bit >> or 64-bit) was first in the path would always run. >> >> There are ways to set things up to work around that, but the average >> Windows user would not be able to deal with it, from what I've seen. >> The average Windows user in RexxLA would be helplessly confused. >> >> It would be very easy to set up two different command shell windows, >> one for 64-bit and one for 32-bit. Then, if you ran everything from >> the command prompt, you could open one command prompt for 64-bit >> ooRexx programs and another one for 32-bit programs. >> >> Doubling clicking on Rexx programs in Explorer would not work though. >> Here you could write a short program to manipulate the system PATH, >> and switch the path according to what ooRexx you wanted to run, 32-bit >> or 64-bit. But it wouldn't be seamless and you'd need to remember >> what program types you were about to run. >> >> -- >> Mark Miesfeld >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content >> authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image >> Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Oorexx-devel mailing list >> Oor...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content > authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image > Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oor...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel > -- David Ashley ooRexx Development Team ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oor...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel |