🚀 go-pugleaf

"Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" <gambit47.no.spam@no.spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40411615$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> "Dennis Jones" <djones@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:4040bd56$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> > And now that I think
> > about it, I might have been able to do the same thing with one of my
> > mutexes too.  After all, I was able to wait on the event handle before
> > the EXE had opened its own handle to it -- so why not a mutex?
>
> I do not recommend a mutex.  The DLL cannot wait for the EXE to signal a
> mutex as easily as it can an event.  As soon as the DLL creates the mutex,
> it would usually end up obtaining ownership of the mutex before the
> application could open it.  Thus the EXE would be waiting on the DLL, not
> the other way around.  An event is better suited for this task instead.

Yes, I see your point.  After thinking about this a little bit more, I can
see that even if the DLL created the mutex without ownership, as soon as it
waited on the mutex (believing that it was waiting on the EXE), it would
immediately gain ownership, thereby preventing the EXE from obtaining
ownership, which of course is required in order to release it!

An event is perfectly suited to the task and that's what I've done.  Thanks
for the suggestion.

- Dennis