CLI rx vs WB rx
5 messages in this thread
Not sure if this is 3.1 specific, but I've noticed a difference in using RX
from the CLI/Shell as opposed to slipping it in as the default tool in a
Workbench icon.
RX from the CLI invokes RexxMast if it's not already active; but it seems
that RX (or C:Rexxc/RX) as a default tool does not. The effect is that the
Workbench start doesn't work unless RexxMast has been called prior to opening
the icon (say, in user-startup), but the CLI call does work.
Is there any alternative that will make the Workbench setup behave better for
naive users? A beginner might be scared off by a download program that reports
'rexxmast: unknown command'.
–Jim
Jim –
Recommended procedure is to put REXXMAST in the WBStartup drawer.
Hank
Videology, Inc Where you get all the P.O.M.P.
under all circumstances
Yup, I know that, Hank. But I'm contemplating uploading of an ARexx program,
and novice users might just want to click on the icon.
So I was wondering; RX given in CLI will cause RexxMast to be activated if
it's not there already. RX given as part of a default tool does not. The
manual gives no hint as to this difference in operation, as far as I can see.
Is there a reason for the difference? Or a workaround? Or something I'm
missing?
–Jim
Jim,
The difference in operation of RX under Workbench reflects the limitation of
the Execute() function used to run a command (in this case, rexxmast.) Calling
Execute() from a WB environment prior to OS 2.04 caused a crash, as WB didin't
provide a valid shell environment. With 2.04 and later, ARexx shipped with the
system, and rexxmast was either started in the SS or could be placed in the
Workbench startup window.
BTW, host applications would not normally run ARexx macros via RX anyway, but
would send messages directly to the ARexx server process.
-Bill Hawes
Thanks for the information on the RX anomaly…
–Jim