on 11-06-2014 3:19 PM
Hi Everyone;
For many years (OK decades since PB 5.0) I have designed and developed many multi-threaded PowerBuilder Classic appreciations (including within the PB Server [DPB]. The following diagram outlines my successful approach to date ...
Note: The "Sub-Thread Handler" and "Real Sub-Thread" object classes are NVUO's.
Q1: Can we implement this processing model the same in PB.Net?
Q2: Even if Q1 is "yes" ... should we use the same approach in the .Net world?
Q3: If we build this in Visual Studio with C#, would the same architecture be valid?
(might still be using some PB.Net assemblies within the sub-threads as "helpers").
Many thanks in advance!
Regards ... Chris
Hi All;
FYI: I have now tested this with PB.Net and looked at a real VS project using multi-threading via the .Net framework. It is certainly a lot easier to do in PB (either version) and I was surprised to see the horrible amount of memory leaks in the VS implementation. I did see some memory creep in PB.Net but PB Classic (via my framework) was memory flat after running 24/7 testing.
Regards ... Chris
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
looked at a real VS project using multi-threading via the .Net framework. It is certainly a lot easier to do in PB (either version) and I was surprised to see the horrible amount of memory leaks in the VS implementation
You may be looking at a rather bad implementation. People make similar complaints about PowerBuilder when they see code from somebody who doesn't use it well not perform well. Speaks more to the way it was implemented rather than the tool itself. An inexperienced person hitting themselves on on the thumb with a hammer doesn't make a hammer a bad tool.
Hi Bruce;
Yes, this could be the case in the current VS implementation. My government client has just hired a VS consultant guru just before Christmas to try and iron out this dilemma. If I get some feedback on what he found and exactly what he did to alleviate this memory leak situation - I'll try & remember to post an update back here for our SCN readers.
BTW: Happy New Year!
Regards ... Chris
User | Count |
---|---|
76 | |
9 | |
8 | |
7 | |
6 | |
5 | |
5 | |
5 | |
5 | |
5 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.