[Info-vax] Any Way to Pass Arrays of Strings from C to Basic?

[Dave Froble]

On 11/8/2019 5:06 PM, seasoned_geek wrote:
> On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 9:42:49 AM UTC-6, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 11/8/2019 8:23 AM, seasoned_geek wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:35:45 PM UTC-6, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 11/7/2019 11:40 AM, seasoned_geek wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 9:11:46 PM UTC-6, Craig Dedo
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>> The only other real consideration was the mandate from upper
>>>>> management that all messages have both guaranteed delivery and
>>>>> guaranteed execution with throttle control. This mandated the tool
>>>>> set of MQ Series feeding ACMS servers. No other tool set on the
>>>>> platform could deliver that. Routing things to batch jobs meant data
>>>>> could and would be lost as had happened in the past with other
>>>>> systems.
>>>>
>>>> Messaging is rather simple, but, it seems all anyone wants to do anymore
>>>> is find someone else's tool to do the job, regardless of fit.
>>>
>>> Kind of like your previous expectations of an XML parser.
>>>
>>> Messaging is simple only if one takes the Linux/PC/Windows brain dead mentality of "oh well, those messages are gone." When you have to have 100% delivery with 100% execution of all messages, even those in process during a hard crash, without manual intervention, THAT is when you have to use MQ Series and ACMS. No other combination can get you that. None.
>>
>> With a proper protocol messaging is simple.  Now, the implementation can
>> be a bit more complex, having to monitor and adjust to communication
>> failures and such.
>>
>> 1) Hey, I got a message for you, it is 99 bytes of data
>> 2) Ok, I'm here, send the message
>> 3) send the message and wait for a response, with timeout
>> 4) Ok, I got 99 bytes of data
>> 5) consider the message complete, remove from queue
>>
>> If at any step there is a failure, go back to step #1
>>
>> Lots of details omitted, but, the concept is simple.
>>
>> Note that what the recipient does with the data is outside the
>> messaging.  Security is outside the messaging.
>
> No, actually, it's not. When you are architecting a system the
> security and life of each and every message is your responsibility.
> What you are describing is _exactly_ what the wanna-be operating
> systems (Linux/Windows) actually do. Completely disregard the
> responsibility for the lifespan of a message. They treat everything
> like email. If ya didn't get it )(*&)(*& ya.

I can see this is becoming an exercise in futility.

You mention "system".  Messaging is NOT an entire application system.. 
It can be a small part of such a system.  It is the application design 
that determines what to do with data delivered via messages.  It is the 
application that sequences, secures, and all else.  Not some messaging 
system.

I do not see where you can mention "if you didn't get it" after what I 
wrote.  I wrote just the opposite, that delivery was guaranteed.

>
> Trying to do that with messages going to batch jobs is beyond
> idiotic,
it's completely irresponsible.

Show me where I mentioned batch jobs?

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486