Re: [cdt-dev] Why doesn't DSF-GDB timeout when it submits query?

[Jason Litton <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Would it be possible to set a reasonable default and then expose an ability to increase those timeouts in a preference page? We've done that with our product and it helps us avoid hangs while allowing longer operations when they're needed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pawel Piech" <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:09:18 PM
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Why doesn't DSF-GDB timeout when it submits query?



If timeouts were as simple as assertions I don't think we'd have any controversy. The problem with timeouts is that if we set a long one (30sec or something), then the effect may be as annoying as a complete hang. If we set a short one (1sec) we risk tripping it in a normal situation on a heavily loaded system.

On 07/17/2012 12:21 PM, Pete MacLiesh wrote:







Assertions are kindof a philosophical parallel. You make bad situations assert and then do your best to recover (at least not crash). You make developers run with assertions enabled on the vm. You don’t run your product with assertions enabled.




Ciao



PMac





From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx ] On Behalf Of Pawel Piech
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 12:05 PM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Why doesn't DSF-GDB timeout when it submits query?




I can appreciate both your points. A fair compormise would be to intoruce a reasonable defualt time out for queries that throws a runtime exception which would be handled in a similar manner as an NPE (i.e. not java.concurrent.TimeoutException). Though, there still the thorny question of what is a reasonable timeout period.
Cheers,
Pawel

On 07/17/2012 11:49 AM, Cortell John-RAT042 wrote:



End-users who have to resort to ‘kill’ or Task Manager after much cursing will likely have a different take. A program that becomes completely unresponsive or that crashes is probably the most frustrating thing a user can experience, particularly when there’s unsaved work at stake.



This is the second time in the last year or so that I’ve heard this interesting perspective: if you allow the symptom of a bug/error-situation be as bad as it can be (a hang, a crash), developers will be more likely to notice it and more motivated to fix it. (The first was on a discussion of parameter validation in C/C++ code). It seems to me that position is reasonable when you’re talking about issues you know for sure will reproduce at development time. But there’s no way to ensure all possible failure scenarios are seen during development, thus I personally don’t think it’s acceptable to knowingly allow a crash or hang.



Anyway, that’s my two cents.

John






From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx ] On Behalf Of Pawel Piech
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 1:29 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Why doesn't DSF-GDB timeout when it submits query?



My personal preference is to have a frozen UI since it forces developers to fix it fast.









_______________________________________________ cdt-dev mailing list cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev



_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev


_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev