No, you didn't. We have no idea what this "Data Store/Telnet" is, nor
how you use Perl to access it. In fact, there was no Perl code at all.
I thought this paragraph covered everything:
I have several servers that share a perl script on a network file
share. This script accesses a telnet server and gets/sets various
attributes.
Apparently not. I apologize. I realize now I should have given more
detail about what the Data Store is. I thought I had explained enough
but I am not perfect and make mistakes.
I help all kinds of people--ones who ask meaningful questions. I have
little patience of people who act stupid, whether they *feel* stupid or
not.
What I don't understand is if someones slightly less than complete
question bugs you why even bother responding in a negative fashion? Why
not just say "You didn't expand upon xyz enough for me to answer your
question. Could you please restate your question with more detail on
xyz?". How does mocking me help anyone?
How can you claim to that you gave details in a Perl group when you gave
no Perl code?
I didn't think it was necessary to show something as basic as how to
write to a Telnet socket in perl. Apparently not. I apologize.
That is because you are barking up the wrong tree. Atomicity is primarily
a property of the "Data Store" server, not the Perl (or Java, or Python,
or C++, or Lisp, or Small Talk, or Ruby, or ...) client which talks to it.
I thought that claiming the equivalence of your original diagram to my
re-arranged one would have made this obvious.
I realize this now that you and others have explained it to me. Every
ones explanations of the difference between files and processes was
very helpful and answered my question.
I suppose I could not find any information on multiple processes
accessing the same code block because it really was a "stupid"
question. However, I don't understand how I would have ever learned any
of this if I had never asked my "stupid" question?
I REALLY am sorry to have wasted every ones time and will do my best to
explain myself in fuller detail from now on. I apologize for being
short but I guess I get easily angered by people who mock others who
make simple mistakes. Thank you for taking the time to answer my
question. I will move my query to a socket or telnet mailing list.