OT: Switch it off and back on ...
blueback09 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 10 03:19:14 EDT 2016
I think the stuff I read about crash-only said that it's normally
implemented in a hierarchy. So you try to restart little processes. If they
come back up and work correctly then nothing else is affected. If they
don't, then you crash the larger process. And so on.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com>
> Matt Maier wrote:
> > I was reading about "crash only" programming a while ago. It like
> > using the "turn it off and back on again"approach as a part of normal
> > business. Since all of your systems need to be able to recover from a
> > crash anyway, why bother programming a graceful shutdown? Just set
> > them up so that they can pick up where they left off and crash them
> > if anything isn't running perfectly.
> I like the simplicity of crash-only. But I currently enjoy a
> below-industry-average support cost; I can't imagine how big of a multiple
> of that average my support costs would be if I rebooted the user's machine
> instead of providing a more graceful degradation.
> Still, tempting....
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode