On 21 February 2013 12:49, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd second that. > > There are two responsibilities mixed into one, which both currently > use one tool: Delay. > > BTW, Delay could have: > >>>elapsedImageTime >>>elapsedRealWorldTime >>>elapsedSinceImageStartTime > > which are three different things. > do you mean:
delay waitImageTime delay waitRealTime delay waitInCurrentSession ? and delay wait is synonym for "delay waitInCurrentSession " > Now, the user of a Delay should be able to specify the intent. > > Is this for managing a timeout? > Is this for managing a repeating task? > ... other use cases ... > > One thing is sure, there are a tad too many Delay instances in the process > list. > > Phil > > 2013/2/21 Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]>: >> Yes, I think you are right: the ambiguity is plain wrong, and even then not >> saving and continuing them sounds reasonable. >> >> But what about the inverse: you schedule something that should happen every >> hour or every day, you save/restart the image and with the new approach >> these would all run immediately, right ? >> >> So not only would you kill delays that are too short (reasonable), but >> collapse the longer ones. >> >> In terms of design: I think the different behaviors should be implemented >> with different objects. >> >> On 21 Feb 2013, at 12:28, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> There is one thing which is IMO an over-engineering artifact: >>> - when system goes down (image shutdown), all currently scheduled >>> delays are "saved" >>> and then when image starting up they are rescheduled again to keep >>> waiting what time is left for delay.. >>> >>> But the problem is that it does not takes into account the total time >>> an image was frozen, and the requirement is quite ambiguous: >>> >>> - if you put a process on a delay for 5 minutes, then immediately >>> save image, and then restart it 10 minutes (or 1 year) after, >>> should this delay keep waiting for 4 +x seconds which is left? Or >>> should we consider this delay as utterly expired? >>> (and as you can see, the answer is different, if we counting time >>> using real, physical time, or just image uptime). >>> >>> And why counting image uptime? Consider use cases, like connection >>> timeout.. it is all about >>> real time , right here , right now.. will it matter to get socket >>> connection timeout error when you restart some image 1 year after? >>> Please, give me a scenario, which will illustrate that we cannot live >>> without it and should count image uptime for delays, because i can't >>> find one. >>> >>> If not, then to my opinion, and to simplify all logic inside delay >>> code, i would go straight and declare following: >>> - when new image session starts, all delays, no matter for how long >>> they are scheduled to wait are considered expired (and therefore all >>> waiting processes >>> is automatically resumed). >>> >>> Because as tried to demonstrate, the meaning of delay which spans over >>> multiple image sessions is really fuzzy and i would be really >>> surprised to find a code >>> which relies on such behavior. >>> >>> This change will also can be helpful with terminating all processes >>> which were put on wait for too long (6304550344559763 milliseconds) by >>> mistake or such. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko. >>> >> >> > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
