Re: Preemptive mode flaw

For anyone following along or reading this on the archives, I wanted to add an update here from the 4D Forums: http://forums.4d.fr/Post/EN/19391591/1/19391592 Thomas MAULRe: Provide developer control when a preemptive worker receives non-preemptive code > For me this is ON ERR CALL, which

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

Jeff and David, thanks for the update. I don't know why we don't have direct access to TAOW, but I'm glad to hear that it works well & is available to the bulk of 4D developers. ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ:

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

I can second this. The TAOW system is well monitored and responsive. > I have to say that the Taow system works really well, in my experience. -- D Samson ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ:

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

Weird that a market large enough for its own branch office doesn't use the same tools as the rest of the world. I have to say that the Taow system works really well, in my experience. If I had to email someone and then have no further contact about an issue until it showed up in a release note,

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

Tim & David, The protocol for ANZ is to email techsupp...@4d.net.au with bug details. I then submit them. Regards, Wayne [image: --] Wayne Stewart [image: http://]about.me/waynestewart On 10 May 2017 at 10:20, David Adams via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com>

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

> If you're a partner then the preferred way to submit a bug is through taow.4d.com which provides you a line of communication > specific to the issue reported, you can therefore request updates via this line of communication. It's not available to Partners in Australia.

RE: Preemptive mode flaw

Hi David, If you're a partner then the preferred way to submit a bug is through taow.4d.com which provides you a line of communication specific to the issue reported, you can therefore request updates via this line of communication. If the issue is a show stopper or otherwise critical in

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

> I may have missed something while reviewing this thread (there was a lot of text) My fault. Mea culpa. > but I am very curious about the following: > Just to get back to the original report, I'm talking about a *bug* in the *current version* that makes these features *unreliable* for use in

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

Am 09.05.2017 um 22:58 schrieb JPR via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com>: > >> us has said what we think the glass is half full *of* ;-) > For me, it will be half-full (at least) of Puligny-Montrachet 1961 from > Maison Faiveley ;-) I seem to be doing something wrong, my hourly rates only allow

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

14:53:56 +1000 > From: David Adams <dpad...@gmail.com> > To: 4D iNug Technical <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> > Subject: Re: Preemptive mode flaw ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.h

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

> I'm curious to know in which one of my postings you have found the following sentence > "that basic error checking is a weird thing to worry about". No, not your words - my paraphrase. Since my entire point was about error trapping and you objected, I didn't know how else to interpret your

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

[JPR] Hi David, > I find it deeply disturbing that a representative of 4D France somehow > thinks that basic error checking is a weird thing to worry about I just would like to correct this: - I'm not a representative of 4D France, just a contractant. - I do not talk in the name of 4D in

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

Well, I've answered your various points but, overall, I'm disappointed that you've again failed to offer any actual technical content. Perhaps Thomas Maul would contribute? He often does not agree with me, but his arguments are always well-reasoned and technically interesting. Even if Thomas

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

> Thanks. Nobody ever mentions that when discussing the feature. Yes. Has anyone heard if this is an expected feature in a future version? That would seem like a fair thing. I'm obviously a lot more into headless and distributed applications than anything else, so I look at networked 4D systems

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

Thanks. Nobody ever mentions that when discussing the feature. > On May 8, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Epperlein, Lutz (agendo) > wrote: > > http://doc.4d.com/4Dv16R2/4D/16-R2.1620/Preemptive-4D-processes.300-3111846.en.html > > look at "Availability of preemptive mode" > >

RE: Preemptive mode flaw

<4d_tech@lists.4d.com> > Cc: Jeffrey Kain <jeffrey.k...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Preemptive mode flaw > > Is it still the case that client/server applications are excluded from > running preemptive > 4D code? > > -- > Jeffrey Kain > jeffrey.k...@gmail.com ***

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

Is it still the case that client/server applications are excluded from running preemptive 4D code? -- Jeffrey Kain jeffrey.k...@gmail.com > On May 7, 2017, at 9:03 PM, Keisuke Miyako via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> > wrote: > > then there is the second, runtime (or platform) check. >

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Keisuke Miyako via 4D_Tech < 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote: Another great post, thanks. I really like the way you've broken out the various scenarios, how they should behave and how you've observed them behaving. Just to make it really clear, all I'm talking about

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

the reason why I think > CALL WORKER("Preemptive_Worker";"MethodWithCooperativeCode") or more specifically > CALL WORKER("Preemptive_Worker";"MethodWithPreemptiveCode") > CALL WORKER("Preemptive_Worker";"MethodWithCooperativeCode") is not a problem goes like this: 4D performs 2 checks;

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 01:42 JPR via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote: > I'm not sure about this topic... About what do you try to demonstrate... It's a pretty standard question about exception handling. > Is it a crash test? A kind of stress test? Do you really want to find a way to crash

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

[JPR] Hi David, I'm not sure about this topic... About what do you try to demonstrate... > I did it on purpose to see what happens. I'm fanatical about checking > inputs and preconditions and wanted to see what sort of error to trap for. > In many cases, there is no error trapped - it just

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Keisuke Miyako via 4D_Tech < 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote: > first up, I myself am still in the process of learning how workers work, > and I totally agree one should probably start with small POCs or > relatively minor tasks before going full on. > I think many of

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Keisuke Miyako via 4D_Tech < 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote: Hey, thanks for writing! I think the world of your contributions and work, but we disagree pretty completely on this. I'll offer my thoughts and point of view on all of this and, hopefully, you can give me

Re: Preemptive mode flaw

> Not a flaw… don’t do this… you know you are not supposed to, I did it on purpose to see what happens. I'm fanatical about checking inputs and preconditions and wanted to see what sort of error to trap for. In many cases, there is no error trapped - it just screws up. This scenario is *way* to