On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:10:41 -0700, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >> Why should everyone reimplement a queue instead of just one program >> implementing a queue on the machine? If the user wants to flush the >> queue, why should he have to track the many different queues instead >> of having just one to look at? > > As I said, and what do those programs do when said helper program isn't >available?
They lose the message and log an error. but, usually, they don't since their packages depend on a program that can supply that queueing functionality. > By definition they have to have a queue of their own since the >only thing they can control is their own behavior. To not have some method of >dealing with an external failure is bad design, plain and simple. It is the way things are done. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
