On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 12:44:51 AM UTC-5, gneuner2 wrote: > > > > On 1/23/2019 12:02 PM, Brian Adkins wrote: > > It looks like you're still using an arbitrary wait time to assume the > > logging event queue is empty. I like it much better than my sleep > > idea, but it seems like there is still the problem of choosing between > > 1) using a timeout value to short and missing a log message, or 2) > > using a timeout value too long and wasting time waiting. > > > > I am relying on all posts to the queue having been made *before* the > stop event is sent. I am NOT relying on wait time - there just has to > be some timeout specified so the sync call returns when the queue is > empty. > > George > > Thanks for the clarification - I missed that important detail!
I'm not familiar with the implementation of Racket's logging, but it seems reasonable that once (log-message) returns the log message would be immediately available for sync'ing i.e. it's not arriving asynchronously. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
