From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,699cc914522aa7c4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Structured exception information Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <1168885771.30643.20.camel@localhost> <1168891576.30643.39.camel@localhost> <5NKdnTv2UZfVZTbYnZ2dnUVZ_vipnZ2d@megapath.net> <38z8yk9z1uxn$.1r6qpevwu2i7c.dlg@40tude.net> <1lpy2h06scx34.1i2k4dlbg0nfy.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:16:26 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2007 11:16:26 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 90634083.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=Z3Pi[4PmeY_PU8j_I0DN6_4IUK On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:36:41 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message > news:1lpy2h06scx34.1i2k4dlbg0nfy.dlg@40tude.net... >> >> How could you be sure that it would write log and not destroy your address >> database? A vivid example is MS-Word which corrupts the document being >> edited upon crash. > > Sure? You can never be completely sure; you have to mitigate risks. But in > my case, I trust my compiler not to destroy anything before generating > checks (given that I wrote most of the compiler, I have a lot of knowledge > of what it will and will not do). I also build components to be resilient to > failure: most everything is controlled, and will reset itself to a correct > state if the objects are prematurely finalized. The main remaining risk is > using dangling pointers (and I try to avoid pointers as much as possible, > and use a special storage pool to try to detect that when I cannot avoid > it). An implementation that corrupted something on a failure is just not > acceptable. Consider a failure defined as "corrupting something." Now what an implementation should do if it notices that it just has corrupted something (=failed)? (:-)) > But even with the logging, you still have to be able to deal with crashes. > For instance, these programs run on Windows; and it's been known to die > occassionally. Right. This is exactly the point. When MS-Word crashes it is not a crash of Windows. Thus the program Windows can continue, the file system can, HDD can, the powerplant supplying the computer can etc, but MS-Word cannot. In other words, for Windows it is a normal state when MS-Word crashes... (:-)) >> BTW, in my view, writing log is still a valid program >> state, it is a defined behavior. As long as you can continue, no matter >> how, it is not yet a bug within the scope where you continue. > > Well, then there are no bugs in my mail and web servers. I'm happy to hear > that. ;-) An undesired behavior is still one... Otherwise we would considered anything we don't like as bugs. > That doesn't match my definition of bug. There's not much to talk about if > we don't agree on the meaning of basic terms. Yes. I think one should clearly distinguish: 1. states 2. undesired (exceptional) states 3. non-states (bugs) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de