I sort of answered my own question. I wrapped the long-running piece in
a Thread.new, with its last statement removing the 100ms timeout, and
everything works the way it should now. At least that's what I think!
Is there any reason to not do that?
Tom
Tom wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have tried both chores & 100ms timeouts, but neither seem to fire.
> I am wrapping a bunch of DB calls inside the chore, and the chore
> never fires. I tried the same thing with a 100ms timeout, and after
> 100ms the timeout never fired. Is there some threshold of busy-ness
> that chores and timeouts do not occur above? The function which does
> the chore resets the chore-call back to itself, so it's not an issue
> of firing once and never again, it's that it never fires in the first
> place. Same thing with the timeout. I display a timer on the start &
> finish of each function. Well over 250ms passes during the db updates
> and the 100ms timeout never fires.
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
> Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
> GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
> administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Fxruby-users mailing list
> Fxr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fxruby-users
>
>
|
