>We've got a problem with a multiuser FoxPro Win application running
>on a novell network where users are inadvertantly starting two sessions
>of the application and the one in the background is* up other users
>with a rlock().
I don't see why starting two sessions should _cause_ an rlock() problem.
Perhaps you mean that the first copy is simply forgotten about ? They have
a locked record that stays locked for most of the day ?
In that case you would probably be better off with a "time_out" function
rather than preventing two sessions. If you prevent a second session of
the same .EXE you do not prevent simply forgetting that they have the first
copy still running. If they start they start a second copy you can warn
them but meanwhile if they don't the rlock() remains in effect all day
They may have a legitimate reason for needing a second copy running or
perhaps you need it from time to time but suddenly you're stopping all the
legitimate users from doing so because a couple of people are screwing up.
The principle of righteous development dictates that he who screws up is
the person who shall suffer from the*up, not everybody who happens
to be on the same network as the screwer upper.
tom (book is almost out but damn they are slow...)