Stefano Ceccherini wrote:
>>And It's definitely not acceptable that it creates a new >reply port for
>>every construction.
Sure thing!
> Yeah, there was a small discussion some weeks ago on the list.
> What about using a static reply port here too ? It would be managed by the
> static lock,
> so it shouldn't run into concurrency problems.
> We would create it when BApplication calls InitData(), and destroy it when
> the BApplication dies.
> Or we could use the BApplication's reply port (as Adi suggested in the
> mentioned discussion).
> But I don't know if it's feasible.
There is _no_ problem! Use BApplication::fServerTo.
bye,
Adi.
