On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Tony Ringsmuth <[email protected]> wrote:
> I appreciate your feedback in this > Thanks! > Tony Ringsmuth > Tony, I will try to list some arguments why I think 4D implemented preemptive processes the way they did: 1. Existing code will not be usable in preemptive processes anyway, developers will have to significantly change or - best - write the code from scratch. 2. Allowing preemptive code to use interprocess variables with caveat that they are not in fact interprocess would be confusing and misleading (and lead to situation that code will behave differently in preemptive and standard mode - see next point.) 3. Preemptive code will be very difficult to debug. If you run into situation when code runs fine in standard but have problems in preemptive mode, all you can do is track code progress with with some sort of logging - writing code progress to log, console or data. That is not very convenient, beside, if problem would related to timing issues, logging may cause the code will start to work (or behave differently.) So I understand 4D want to be cautious and prohibit any code that may cause problems in preemptive processes. -- Peter Bozek ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
