No, I was not offended by your comments at all. I simply wanted to emphasize the real world possibilities of these types of unexpected events.
Hank 2012/2/25 Rubén Pérez <[email protected]>: > Hank, > > Sorry if you misunderstood my words -- I did not thought your proposal was > not serious, or a joke, but I liked the way you put it in words. It's very > true that the unexpected can happen (and sometimes in Matterhorn it happens > more often that it should). > > I also agree with your statement that operators can be too busy to manually > force-stop those failed workflows, so I guess you're so right with the idea > of a 'Terminator' service which stop those workflows that have been idle for > too long, etc., as long as the detection mechanism makes sure there's no > "false positives" (i.e. does not stop workflows that aren't really failed). > > My concern is still who will have the resources to develop this task, but I > think it's something that should be in the roadmap. > > Best regards > > > _______________________________________________ > Matterhorn-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn-users > -- Hank Magnuski Direct: +1-408-541-9230 x205 Cell: +1-650-714-2409 Skype: hank.magnuski www.ncast.com _______________________________________________ Matterhorn-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn-users
