So all libraries should actually issue error instead of panic, because
libraries
cannot know is error fatal or not ? (But the error looks severe,
however).
Simple change would be easy to implement, and Jon is not only one
getting
strange octstr panics.
Aarno
On 24.3.2005, at 00:12, Stipe Tolj
Aarno,
So all libraries should actually issue error instead of panic, because
libraries
cannot know is error fatal or not ? (But the error looks severe, however).
Simple change would be easy to implement, and Jon is not only one getting
strange octstr panics.
As an aside of sorts,
Aarno Syvänen wrote:
There actually seems to two kinds of panic:
a) Configuration errors. In this case, continuation really is impossible.
b) Libs has some sanity checks that cause panic. If we just have a broken
message, we must just ignore message, not panic.
thats right. That's how Jörg
Alexander Malysh wrote:
I'm really -1 for disabling panics. if some places use panics but could
continue then it's a bug and those places should be fixed. panic may _only_
be used if no recovery possible.
correct. Hence summerizing:
* keep panic(), it should be _only_ use in places that can't be
Aarno Syvänen wrote:
And I cannot agree more, actually. But auditing takes time. Until
it is done, --disable-panics will be of some use.
now, yes, auditing takes some time. But it's the way to go, IMO. Simply adding a
configure switch would cause in unstable internal state if a function hits the
Yes. --disable-panics should be only a stopgap. One truly must know
what messages are causing the panics. It actually can be just an error
of the phone .
On 16.3.2005, at 17:52, Jonathan Houser wrote:
Aarno,
There actually seems to two kinds of panic:
a) Configuration errors. In this case,
An: Aarno Syvänen
Cc: Kannel list
Betreff: Re: [RFC] --disable-panics configuration option
Aarno,
There actually seems to two kinds of panic:
a) Configuration errors. In this case, continuation really is
impossible.
b) Libs has some sanity checks that cause panic. If we just have a
broken
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 19:09, Pommnitz, Jörg wrote:
But this just confirms what I wrote: such a panic is obviously
inappropriate and should be replaced by a warning. So, I stand by
what I wrote earlier: just audit the panics and make sure Kannel
panics in only *REALLY* hopeless situations.
with no way out opposed to just
a programmer too lazy to unwind a complicated code flow?
Regards
Joerg
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Aarno Syvänen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. März 2005 14:57
An: Kannel list
Betreff: [RFC] --disable-panics configuration option
Hi List,
can
Joerg
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jonathan Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. März 2005 17:52
An: Aarno Syvänen
Cc: Kannel list
Betreff: Re: [RFC] --disable-panics configuration option
Aarno,
There actually seems to two kinds of panic
10 matches
Mail list logo
