> > 1) State recovery: Would it make sense to have Evo restore all open > > windows on reopening after a crash, > > That's actually near the top of my to-do list. > [...snip...] > This would also let you shut down your computer with Evolution still > running, and Evolution would appear as you left it when you log back > in.
Yay, that sounds fantastic! I've logged https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622680 , which hopefully covers essentially what you're describing above. > > 2) Crash impact reduction via process isolation: > The strange thing is that one of the major improvements to Evo when > going from 1.x to 2.x (I think) was getting rid of the individual > processes for each component and amalgamating them into one threaded > executable. :-) > The problem really comes down to how the individual processes and > windows interact and synchronise - as far as I can see with something > like a browser the individual windows/tabs etc are essentially > autonomous and independent, whereas with a groupware application there > is considerably more interaction between the components. ... and ... > Evolution actually did work much like that in the early, early days. > Implementing a large, complex, tightly-integrated, multi-purpose > application is enough of a PITA when everything is in one process. > Trying to implement that kind of tight integration via inter-process > communication is just unwieldy. I believe that's what was found the > first time around, and I'm not all that anxious to return to that > model. That all makes good sense - i.e. that there's more interaction between the different components than in most apps, such that the added weight of separation + adding all the needed communication methods exceeds the benefit of that separation. Discard that idea then! -- All the best, Nick. _______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
