On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Richard Welty wrote:
> it's not clear that this is entirely the right list, i'm gambling that i'll
> at least find some tcl expert here who can set me straight.
>
> i'm trying to get tcl-dp running in order to support a pgreplicator
> installation. when i run pgtclsh and enter "package require dp" manually,
> i get the following error:
>
> can't find package dp
>
> but then when i do
>
> info loaded
>
> i get
>
> {/usr/lib/tcl8.3/dp4.0/unix/libdp40.so Dp}
>
> suggesting that something is broken down there and a better error message
> might be squirreled away somewhere. i'm no tcl expert, any pointers would
> be appreciated.
Yep, you're right, it's not the correct list. I don't know what is.
However, the dp package has some oddities imo. I have wasted a fair amount of
time recently trying to locate bugs in my code where the real problem has been
with the dp package. It looks a reasonable system to use if all you want is low
data volume, rpc style communication.
The handling of SIGPIPE etc. should be a good selling point but imo it is far
better and easier just to handle the networking and everything yourself. I
hadn't read in depth about the 'low-level' facilities it provided but what I
did made me think it would be useful but I was only going to use those with the
rpc interface for simplicity. If I was going to go to the degree of learning a
new set of library calls to open a socket I'd be inclined to just use the
native socket one instead and if I was expecting any decent level of comms
traffic I'd certainly not use the dp_RPC stuff.
As I say just my opinion.
--
Nigel J. Andrews