D
dbeavon
Guest
Thanks for the tips. My experience with those options (lock-wait and stop-after) have had very mixed results. I was hoping to try something new, which might behave in a more reliable way. An example related to LOCK-WAIT... the other day we had a couple client-server processes that appeared to be locked in a deadly embrace for about two hours. This was despite the fact that one of them was a PASOE session, and therefore its lock-wait should have timed out after only 10 seconds! (Which is the default behavior for PASOE client code.) Similarly, the STOP-AFTER seems very finicky and seems to only work in certain scenarios. It would be interesting to know how that is implemented internally. Here are a couple links to details about the behavior STOP-AFTER: community.progress.com/.../1761 documentation.progress.com/.../index.html Notes: "STOP-AFTER phrases are not intended to interact with user interfaces" "Blocking calls to third party software components, where the AVM has transferred execution control, cannot be timed out." As far as I can tell, STOP-AFTER involves a both (1) a timer, and also (2) ongoing polling which must be happening internally in order to detect when the timer elapsed. IE. If the polling (part 2) isn't able to happen as promptly as it should, then the STOP-AFTER does not have the intended effect. Anyway, I don't want to get too far off-topic. I was hoping someone may know about the purpose of the ClientTimeOut feature. That could be really useful now that some of our appserver stuff is being migrated to PASOE. Please let me know if anyone has tried to use it.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...