Hi Ray,
It seems your only choices are (1) put your stack outside the realm of those
stacks flushing the events, or (2) structure your script so it isn't using
messages to run.
Approach #1 means running it under a different instance of the engine (e.g. as a
standalone that communicates with instance #1 via sockets for example), which
could be pretty complex depending on what your stack is doing.
Approach #2 means running your stuff inside a repeat loop that has a 'wait x
seconds with messages' inside the loop. Seems like that would be impervious to
flushEvents() but I haven't tested it.
Maybe someone else will think of other ways to handle your situation.
Best -
Phil Davis
On 2/4/12 10:59 AM, Ray Horsley wrote:
I thought idle handlers ran in hidden stacks as long as they were top level. Seems this
has gone away. Any ideas on this? I'm trying to get an idle handler to run in a hidden
stack but I can only send messages from that same stack. Sending "idle" from
the stack to itself in X seconds is not working because other handlers in stacks I have
no control over are flushing events.
Ray Horsley
LinkIt! Software
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
--
Phil Davis
PDS Labs
Professional Software Development
http://pdslabs.net
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
