FW: OT: broken/useless ansi - console driver??

[Fairlight]

Top-posted for ya, John.

It's what was described that confused me.  I'm not saying you don't have to
recompile and replace it.  I'm trying to figure out how it's problematic
that a -test- server crash with clients connected, as opposed to having
a clean shutdown, if all you're going to do is test a new compile.  You
need to disconnect all clients to test the new server binary anyway, unless
you're running it on a different port.

The implication that it was -especially- problematic for him to have the
server crash was that he might have actual users (as opposed to test
clients) connected to the server whose binary was being replaced.  In
that case, it would be more of a production machine than a test machine,
and all the rules of administration say, "Don't do that."  And given his
years of experience, I would expect he'd be following good practises.

I mean, if it's just a test server with test clients, and you have to take
connections down anyway so you can reconnect to the newly compiled version,
it doesn't really make much difference if it exited with a bang or a
whimper.

Maybe he's using different ports.  I don't even know what kind of server it
is, so it's possible.  But if that's the case, he'd still not be able to
replace the binary without shutting down the old server manually under the
old (proper) scenario of "text file busy", which apparently he has been.

Which brings me back to:  "Why is one exit any worse than another if you're
just going to shut it all down anyway--unless it's a production machine?"

Guess what's confusing me is the lack of context, which isn't my business
anyway. :)

mark->


Is it just me, or did John Esak say:
> I think you've lost me on this one... I have no idea what you are talking
> about. Production machine??  This is a developer who is writing new code on
> a development machine... and various connected via tcp/ip outlying clients.
> How do you develop if not by compiling and re-compiling and trying the new
> binary... over and over until it all works?  It's the way I do it. I don't
> know any other way. :-)