| Title: | *OLD* ALL-IN-1 (tm) Support Conference |
| Notice: | Closed - See Note 4331.l to move to IOSG::ALL-IN-1 |
| Moderator: | IOSG::PYE |
| Created: | Thu Jan 30 1992 |
| Last Modified: | Tue Jan 23 1996 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 4343 |
| Total number of notes: | 18308 |
I am working with 3M on an application that involves the
INSTALL and EXECUTE Functions. I looked in OAAIM.BLI and
not being a BLISSfull type, I have a question about the
code and another question about PFR.
In the OAAIM.BLI module it appears that there is no fixed
limit to the number of entries in the dynamic table. Is
this correct? Is there a *pratical* limit.
Has anyone considered a *DEINSTALL* function? To remove
an image from the dynamic table.
The reason is that 3M has ONE application with about 32 images
they wish to add to the dynamic table. (NOTE: this application
is not used by the majority of the ALL-IN-1 users on any specific
system). They also will have other applications that will make
heavy use of the INSTALL/EXECUTE Functions.
Thanks,
Tim
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 759.1 | No sweat | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid??? | Wed May 27 1992 21:14 | 8 |
Since the INSTALL function just does a LIB$GET_VM to add more memory to the dynamic table, there really is no effective limit. As far as a DEINSTALL, although it's been asked for before, I guess the question is: Why? You're not really spending an incredibly intense amount of memory for your entries; there isn't that big a price to pay. It's kind of like wanting to remove ALL-IN-1 functions from the OACTL module if you don't use them at all... F | |||||
| 759.2 | the shareable image is mapped during the INSTALL; can't be unmapped | SKNNER::SKINNER | I'm doing my EARS | Wed May 27 1992 22:11 | 5 |
On the DEINSTALL front, VMS doesn't provide a way to unmap the shared image from your virtual address space. So there is nothing that "DEINSTALL" could do other than make your function name become invalid. What good would that do? /Marty | |||||
| 759.3 | Assumption correct? | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid??? | Thu May 28 1992 14:48 | 4 |
I think that the original question simply wanted to release the dynamic table space; is that correct? Again, there's not much point in it... F | |||||
| 759.4 | Both Correct! | AIMTEC::BUTLER_T | Thu May 28 1992 15:20 | 24 | |
Frank, Marty,
You are both correct.
When I explained the lack of overhead, image address only added
for that user, small dynamic table space, workings of LIB$* external
references:
Two of the *Four* customers who asked for the *DEINSTALL*
on the Same Day - still wanted the capability.
I suspect the two that still want me to submit an enhancement request
are still weary of memory management within the module. Thus, they
wanted to release the space. They are aware of the patch and that
the images work even with the error message, and can supress the message.
They are both good VMS programmers and when four good customers ask for
this in one day, I thought (my mistake) I had better check. I will
talk them out of it.
Again Thank You,
Tim
| |||||