Re: Re: Threads

I have already read the answer, tried out the suggestion and then posed the question as i saw that Win32::process wudn't give the same kind of behaviour as given by usage of threads.

For eg., in the purpose mentioned by me, the separate process was spawned but didnt parallely run in the background. That was why i posed the question again specifically.

Being new to this monastery, if theres any mistake frm my part, Pardon this young monk...

Comment on Re: Re: Threads

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Threads by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 18, 2002 at 12:03 UTC
Could you explain what you mean by "but didnt parallely run in the background"? How did you come to this conclusion? Perhaps if you would show us the code you used to start the process, and the script that you attempted to run, we might be able to offer an explaination as to why this didn't work for you. Examine what is said, not who speaks.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Threads by TheYoungMonk (Sexton) on Dec 18, 2002 at 12:00 UTC
Sorry ! I didnt see the new replies added on to my query. Because of my lack of knowledge in searching through the monastery. Thanks to you, Now I've seen all the replies to my earlier question.	[reply]