Open running processes
tim.golden at viacom-outdoor.co.uk
Thu Jun 30 10:43:59 CEST 2005
| > Tim Goldenwrote:
| > Assuming that you're answering my question: why use mmap and
| > not just two events? I understand what your overall plan is,
| > and it looks like you have a way to solve it. It just seemed
| > that you might be able to achieve the same thing with two
| > events: one for maximize and one for minimize. Why would
| > this be better? Well, only because it seems to me slightly simpler
| > than one event and a separate mmap mechanism. But I've never
| > done what you're doing, so I may well be completely wrong.
| > TJG
| Hi Tim,
| U are right! (i believe) at first i put in the minimize for testing.
| I'm only using the maximize.
| But it seemed handy to do it this way and beeing abled to send over
| data from an other programm. That's what i want to use the mmap for.
| Or am i missing something. because i'm not really seeing what your
| point is. Because it is a complete different process what is calling
| the maximize (or minimize) i can't just create an event and call it
| (or can i?)
If you wanted to send over arbitrary data from another application,
then this is certainly a way to do it. (Another way might be to use a
Windows pipe, for example). My point was only that if you are signalling
an event as a wake-up call plus an atom of extra information saying
"max" or "min", and you weren't considering any expansion of this
vocabulary to include other commands, then two distinct events might
be simpler, one signalling "maximize", the other "minimize".
Please don't take this as any criticism of your work: there's no one
right design decision here; I was merely curious as to the reasons
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
More information about the Python-list