Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> Why should everyone reimplement a queue instead of just one program
> implementing a queue on the machine? If the user wants to flush the
> queue, why should he have to track the many different queues instead
> of having just one to look at?
As I said, and what do those programs do when said helper program isn't
available? By definition they have to have a queue of their own since the
only thing they can control is their own behavior. To not have some method of
dealing with an external failure is bad design, plain and simple. And since
any good design is going to be resistant to external failure it doesn't matter
through what means that external failure is reached.
I guess a better question to ask is why everyone insisnts on having an
external queue when an internal one is pretty much required for robustness?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
