Thomas DeWeese wrote: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=4123 > > You created a bugzilla entry for this (good job). I responded to > this requesting a standalone test case. I am keen to fix this but I > need a test case so I don't just flail around.
Ah, thanks.. must have dropped the email. I'll work on a test case. > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=3958 > > This _is_ precisely what stopProcessing does. Note that the > canceled event may be delayed a while (in many cases the current > action, parse, build, render may complete, however the next 'phase' > will not start). Ok, that makes sense... so this implies that no matter what happens, any phase that is reported as having started is always subsequently reported as having been either canceled or completed... While I've got your ear, here's another unanswered email... http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=3928 It seems from my observation that the rendering can in fact get arbitrarily far behind (this is why I need to use suspend() and resume() (as described in aforementioned bug)). Can you confirm that this is indeed the case? Thanks, -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
