It must launch the individual applications in predefined order.Do these application have to run contemporarily? I mean, you can desire to start them at 1-second of distance between them, but let them run at the same time after you've started them. This changes the situation dramatically, because if they have to executed in series (start of #1, end of #1, start of #2, end of #2, ...) you can use system(), otherwise you've to look for other solutions, ranging from IPC::Open3 to the most flexible fork() call.
It must capture the status information from individual applications as they are running (on the fly).Note that status information is technically available only when your sub-process exits. If you're looking for ways to grab the output (e.g. standard output or standard error) from your code, you still can use both system() and the other more flexible (but less straightforward) solutions above. Take a look at Capturing both STDOUT, STDERR and exit status for this. In the first approach you'll receive the output when your subprocess exits, in the other solutions you can grab them really on-the-fly, i.e. as soon as they're written by the subprocess (beware STDOUT buffering at this regard).
Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))')
Don't fool yourself.In reply to Re: Communication among applications
by polettix
in thread Communication among applications
by kamesh3183
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |