Shared Package Container feedback - different jobs

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-2413506%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EShared%20Package%20Container%20feedback%20-%20different%20jobs%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-2413506%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EIf%20I%20put%20two%20packages%20into%20a%20container%2C%20I%20see%20the%20following%20(unexpected)%20behavior.%26nbsp%3B%20Starting%20a%20shortcut%20from%20either%20app%20makes%20access%20to%20the%20other%20package%20components%20somewhat%20available%20(meaning%20we%20have%20to%20be%20careful%20about%20package%20construction%2C%20but%20that%20isn't%20the%20point%20on%20this%20feedback).%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EBut%20if%20I%20launch%20a%20shortcut%20from%20the%20first%20package%2C%20and%20then%20launch%20a%20shortcut%20from%20the%20second%20package%2C%20it%20looks%20like%20they%20are%20running%20in%20different%20containers%20(based%20upon%20a%20belief%20that%20the%20Job%20IDs%20being%20different%20means%20different%20containers.%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3BI%20don't%20yet%20have%20an%20example%20app%20of%20why%20this%20is%20a%20problem%2C%20but%20my%20instinct%20says%20it%20will%20be%20one.%26nbsp%3B%20Why%20shouldn't%20the%20second%20process%20join%20the%20existing%20running%20container%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-2521282%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Shared%20Package%20Container%20feedback%20-%20different%20jobs%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-2521282%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EThanks%20for%20posting.%20We%20are%20looking%20into%20this%20issue.%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
MVP

If I put two packages into a container, I see the following (unexpected) behavior.  Starting a shortcut from either app makes access to the other package components somewhat available (meaning we have to be careful about package construction, but that isn't the point on this feedback).

 

But if I launch a shortcut from the first package, and then launch a shortcut from the second package, it looks like they are running in different containers (based upon a belief that the Job IDs being different means different containers).   I don't yet have an example app of why this is a problem, but my instinct says it will be one.  Why shouldn't the second process join the existing running container?

1 Reply
Thanks for posting. We are looking into this issue.