Subj : Re: Queues vs. Sockets To : X V Lxxix From : Digital Man Date : Thu Jun 19 2008 05:37 pm Re: Re: Queues vs. Sockets By: Digital Man to X V Lxxix on Thu Jun 19 2008 01:02 pm > Re: Re: Queues vs. Sockets > By: X V Lxxix to Digital Man on Thu Jun 19 2008 12:46 pm > > > > Both (either one) of these fixes forces the Queue destructor to be > > > called at the end of the script which is responsible for detaching > > > the node thread from the Queue and removing the Queue from the > > > named-queue list. > > > > that worked. I think part of the problem was that to make the queue > > communications work for more than 2 people, I had to create more than > > one queue, and consequently each participating user had to create a > > local instance of each named queue. > > > > It made things a lot harder to clean up. Since you have a local instance > > of every user's queue, you can't rely on the queue's existence to > > determine if the user is still present. so I had to make an exiting user > > broadcast on a named "quit" channel so that listening connections would > > know the person has left, and both would have to delete their instance > > of the queue. > > > > Somewhere in that nonsense things did not work. > > Glad it's working for you now. In general, it's good practice to use 'var' > to define variables as the scope is then specified (not global) and you'll > have better garbage collection. BTW, I realize it's probably not clear from the documentation (http://synchro.net/docs/jsobjs.html#Queue), but the "value" argument to the Queue.write() method can be any of several JS value types: bool, string, number, null, *even* an object (with properties of any of these types, including nested objects). This may help in passing complex state information between threads (nodes) without requiring complex string parsing. digital man (xbox-live: digitlman) Snapple "Real Fact" #76: The average person spends 2 years on the phone in his/her lifetime. Norco, CA WX: 64.2øF, 67% humidity, 0 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs .