On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Sami Jaber <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes you are right, but do you really think that in the case of a failure, > you would try to change your code flow differently depending on where you > are ? Except displaying a generic message, you won't be able to go further > as I understand the mechanism. > Concerning the second point, this is the crucial question. There are a few > scenarios that could be conceivable. > We can imagine that a permuation of 1 Mo could be splitted into 2 chunks of > 500 Ko or 4 chunks of 250 Ko of 10 chunks of 5 Ko, that is what I call a > "balanced tree" or "balanced split points". Most people would probably want > to split their permutations only to get responsiveness and decrease startup > time without digging more in the code flow... > But if you say that it is not possible at all, I believe you ...
I'm not sure that it's not possible, I think it's more that doing it under automatic control is undesirable. A split point will, on first execution, introduce a delay in processing. Such delays can be acceptable if the programmer can control where they go. If the compiler introduces a delay at an apparently random place in the code, the delay could very well be disruptive. Forcing the programmer to choose when to allow delays and when not leaves the control in the programmer's hands, and prevents automatically-generated catastrophes. Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
