My interpretation is that he was advocating a future where a precondition’s failure killed less than the entire process. Instead, shut down some smaller portion like a thread, actor, or container like .Net's app domains (which for those more familiar with Javascript could be loosely compared with Web Workers).
Today - if you wanted a Swift server where overflowing addition didn’t interrupt your service for multiple users, you would need to use something like a pre-fork model (with each request handled by a separate swift process) That's the difference between CLI and desktop apps where the process is providing services for a single user, and a server where it may be providing a service for thousands or millions of users. -DW > On Jan 16, 2017, at 2:32 PM, Callionica (Swift) via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > One stray thread performing an overflowing addition can be the difference > between a secure system and an insecure one. Better to take the process down. > > -- Callionica > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:48 PM Russ Bishop via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > I don’t think it makes sense to abort a server process (potentially dropping > X threads and thousands of connections on the ground) because one stray > thread performed an overflowing addition… > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
