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, Richard Gaskin <ambassa...@fourthworld.com> wrote: > 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 set > > them up so that they can pick up where they left off and crash them > > if anything isn't running perfectly. > > http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2016-July/228647.html > > :) > > I like the simplicity of crash-only. But I currently enjoy a > below-industry-average support cost; I can't imagine how big of a multiple > of that average my support costs would be if I rebooted the user's machine > instead of providing a more graceful degradation. > > Still, tempting.... > > -- > Richard Gaskin > Fourth World Systems > Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web > ____________________________________________________________________ > ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
