On Jun 17, 1:42 am, Zach Hobesh <hob...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Chris Rebert<c...@rebertia.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:21 PM, <hob...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey Dave, > > >> Thanks for the helpful responses. > > >>> Option 2 is what you get by default. Naturally it depends on what the > >>> application is using to launch the batch file, but the most common cases > >>> will launch a separate process. > > >> The app ended up delaying starting the second batch file until it finished > >> the first. I had the app trigger an infinite loop on completion, and sent > >> two files through at the same time. The second file finished seconds after > >> the first, but the batch file didn't trigger until I closed the first one. > > > Are you sure you aren't unknowingly having the app wait on the first > > batch file process until it terminates? How exactly are you launching > > the batch files? > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > -- > >http://blog.rebertia.com > > Hey Chris, > > I actually think that's what's happening, which is fine in my case > (for now anyway) as I just need them all to complete, we don't need > them running at the same time. I'm using a job management system, and > they have the option of triggering a command line after completing a > job. > > A better/safer solution might be spawning another job and re-inserting > to the jms queue. > > Thanks again, > > Zach
You might want to take a look at the Python-SIMPL toolkit (http:// www.icanprogram.com/06py/main.html). SIMPL uses a Send/Receive/Reply interprocess messaging scheme which will naturally queue requests for you. Without too much effort you may be able to reorient your scheme to eliminate the batch file entirely. bob -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
