On 21 February 2013 20:56, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:28 AM, 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.. > > Right now one says Delay forMilliseconds: n etc. That's clearly a > duration. An API which said Delay until: aTime is different, and > could be added to the current API easily. >
yes. Still this won't make #forMilliseconds: protocol less ambiguous. > One good reason for keeping the current behaviour is profiling image > shutdown and startup. The current MessageTally is slightly broken in > this regard but I fixed it at Cadence to profile our start-up > slowness. > > So please consider carefully throwing this behaviour away. I at least > find it quite useful. Can you shed some details? How delay's implementation helps with that? >> >> 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, > Eliot > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
