On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 04:40:49PM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote: > > But the reason we implemented the "force after delay" feature was > > exactly to kill the deadlocks. In many ways, the anti-deadlock pool may > > be a better solution to this, and combined with the it can only be an > > improvement. In general, I think that Niklas' design seems very > > sensible. > > Nevertheless, coding the thread pool to resist bugs in the rest of the > node (and adding a lot of complication to it in the process) seems like > the wrong approach in the long run.
It is called defensive programming and is generally considered to be good practice. Of course, it would be preferable if it weren't nescessary, but one should never assume that there are no bugs in their code. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020219/1ffa1aa2/attachment.pgp>
