On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:15, Martin Langhoff <martin.langh...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: >>> I tihnk I have been sloppy with my words, so let me clarify two things: >>> >>> - killing processes should be done only to avoid OOM (because >>> currently the kernel kills the wrong thing most of the time). >> >> Can't we just _close it nicely_? > > When you are about to get into OOM? Don't think so because it's very > probable that the kernel will block or kill something randomly before > the activity or the user react. But as I said, before we reach this > point we should have given the activities and/or the user the option > to avoid this situation.
Not sure what the requirements would be of implementing something like iphone/ipod (well versions prior to 4) where when the Activity is "backgrounded" it saves its state and quits so you don't really have more than one app running at a time? Peter _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
