On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:10:41 -0700, Steve Lamb <grey@???> wrote:
>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?
They lose the message and log an error. but, usually, they don't since
their packages depend on a program that can supply that queueing
functionality.
> 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.
It is the way things are done.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
