Re: if, idle, stay open - PROVE IT
Re: if, idle, stay open - PROVE IT
- Subject: Re: if, idle, stay open - PROVE IT
- From: Phi Sanders <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:08:39 -0500
I REALLY need some empirical evidence of this, as ALL of my scripts
with idle handlers have if statements and I've had exactly 1 crash
that wasn't due to my own bad code.
(I add tasks to a list and then idle through that list in order
to allow the server to continue working while the script progresses)
My experience makes me want to decry this as a rumor, but it's so
persistently brought up I feel compelled to give it some credence...
Is there a test case script out there that succintly demonstrates this crash?
Is there a timeframe over which these suppossed crashes do not occur?
(As I'm not seeing it in the 2-12 hours runs I use...)
~Phi
--
Phi Sanders
"Phee, Phi, Pho, Phum..."
"And now, back to your regularly scheduled reality."
On 1/5/01, Jason W. Bruce {email@hidden} said the following :
>
John Christie <email@hidden> asked:
>
>
> Can someone refresh me on the story here with if's in idles
>
> of stay opens locking things up (9.0.4, all updates)? Is there a
>
> work around? It's a timer so I need some kind of conditional (put
>
> the if in a subhandler?).
>
>
Scripts with "if" statements inside idle handlers in 9.04 are
>
subject to random crashes. My experience has been that this is the case
>
even if you remove the "if" statement from inside the idle handler and place
>
it in a separate handler which the idle handler calls -- though Jim Lindholm
>
indicated several weeks ago that this approach solved his problem.
>
>
Workarounds would include using a repeat statement and then using
>
"delay" from the standard additions or "pause for" from Akua Sweets. Eric
>
Grant's Sleep Commands are also a substitute for idle handlers, but I've
>
never used them. Finally, instead of a repeat loop, you could have a
>
handler recursively call itself after using the above methods to yield
>
processor cycles, but I have read on this list that there are issues with
>
recursion in AppleScript. I've also read on this list that the bug is fixed
>
in 9.1.
>
>
Jason Bruce
>
_______________________________________________
>
applescript-users mailing list
>
email@hidden
>
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users