I think the stuff I read about crash-only said that it's normally
implemented in a hierarchy. So you try to restart little processes. If they
come back up and work correctly then nothing else is affected. If they
don't, then you crash the larger process. And so on.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM,
Hi from Beautiful Brittany,
I've always been in favour of this practice, without questioning why !
I run an old version lof LiveCode (5.5). Quite often, I save a modified
version of my stack, and then try to Quit LiveCode.
I get the same message asking me to Save or Cancel, and LiveCode is
now
On 09/08/2016 06:08, Matt Maier wrote:
Because we're capable of building systems more complex than we can
understand. So there are always ghost states it can get into that we didn't
prepare for.
I was reading about "crash only" programming a while ago. It like using the
"turn it off and back
Matt Maier wrote:
> I was reading about "crash only" programming a while ago. It like
> using the "turn it off and back on again"approach as a part of normal
> business. Since all of your systems need to be able to recover from a
> crash anyway, why bother programming a graceful shutdown? Just
Because we're capable of building systems more complex than we can
understand. So there are always ghost states it can get into that we didn't
prepare for.
I was reading about "crash only" programming a while ago. It like using the
"turn it off and back on again"approach as a part of normal
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Alex Tweedly wrote:
> Why can't we build tech items that don't suffer such problems and get fixed
> by this solution
>
Well God couldn't do it with all his creations but instead ensured
there was an impossible to ignore signal of when to
My wife is always annoyed / amused that my stock response to any
non-trivial computer / broadband / phone problem is the magic
"power-cycle" method. As she says "4 years getting a BSc in Computer
Science, 25 years in the electronics design and software business - and
that's the best you can