On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 12:06 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> But in general we should avoid potentially pointless DNS calls. Let's
> not risk having to wait for DNS timeouts in badly configured
> situations. I think there has been bug reports of OOo and/or LO being
> very slow to start in some cases, where the root cause has been some
> DNS call timing out?
Yes - I've seen this. I spent a while debugging the:
"OO.o takes 14 seconds to start instead of 10"
type bugs, which used to riddle the whole linux desktop in this
situation, and that I spent time in a previous life fixing / working
around. If, as Stephan suggests, we use this for .lock files - then I
don't believe we should ;-) having a potential 10+ second delay before
opening a file is not ideal. [ and the duplicate count for these huge
login / startup delays was really quite real & included me FWIW ].
Indeed, it'd be rather nice if we could sort out our .lock files story
so that I don't routinely see bogus/broken / stale lock file dialogs
but ... ;-) that's a different story I guess; and one that needs some
unit tests I suppose.
More encouraging is Noel's suggestion that the whole thing is unused
anyway ;-)
Thanks for caring though & finding that mess, nice to see it much
simpler in master Arnaud.
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
