Shared memory?

darkone · 05-30-2003, 04:44 AM

Is there something that is still missing, or should I start optimizing the code?

tff2 · 05-30-2003, 04:56 AM

Hi D1,

don�t know if my post here is correct... but what about the !unlock feature (to kick people why they are downing or upping to a dir to nuke it) ?

Will it be re-enabled soon ?

Till l8er man, keep up da good work !
sOlOnElY

FTPServerTools · 05-30-2003, 05:27 AM

basically I have been able to do almost everything I wanted with the shared memory thing. It works like a dream. The only wish would be the ability to also write into it, e.g. with a copytoio event or something. I can imagine it isnt the simplest thing since for example I could add ip masks or removed them and thus need more memory.
For example, I could think of implementen a user database from any odbc database this way by catching the USER/PASS ... events.
Or at least it wouldnt be far off then.....

darkone · 05-30-2003, 05:37 AM

Amount of memory required by USERFILE structure is static. Altering it is already possible in 4.9.x with window messages & shared memory (see datacopy example).
Or did you mean the STATIC structure, used by who? (The one that is currently being raped ;p to allow storing real path names along with virtual paths)

Mouton · 05-30-2003, 03:06 PM

is shared mem avail in win2k with 4.9.x ?
didn't play with it yet since i have many win2k sites for which i develop...

darkone · 05-30-2003, 04:10 PM

Yep.. should work with win2k.. I also implemented support for 9X/ME.. incase someone wants to write backwards compatible code

FTPServerTools · 05-30-2003, 04:32 PM

I see only the userfile would be interesting. But i can imagine the STATIC struct may in some really odd util be handy to be written to. Although I cant see any valid reason now. The userfile structure makes a LOT more sense for that.