On 03 Dec 2013, at 11:08, Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03 Dec 2013, at 10:01, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 2, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Benjamin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 02 Dec 2013, at 20:27, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> We try now to have responsive UIs in the sense the tools like Nautilus >>>>>>> try to >>>>>>> run things in a separate thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will do an experiment and fork each Nautilus opening to see if it can >>>>>>> save my ass :P >>>>>> :) >>>>>> >>>>>> personnally I would be really against because just forking is just a way >>>>>> to have a lot more mess in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Why ? >>>> >>>> Because you do not know when you invariants should hold. Normally you >>>> expect them to hold once the system is loaded. >>>> Because loading for example act as an atomic action when you modify the >>>> system. Now if your thread can see and modify >>>> different versions of the state be prepared to have really strange and >>>> difficult bugs to find. >>>> >>>> I prefer to have cache than to have forked processes around. >>> >>> Cache will not help you killing Nautilus when it freezes your image >> >> fork neither. > > It should not freeze your image anymore, only its own thread Wow, that was fast > > Ben > >> >>> (why cache by the way ?) >> >> I thought the discussion was about speeding up nautilus when performing >> start up actions. >>> >>> Ben >>> >>>> >>>> Stef
