On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:05 AM, <joost.t.h...@planet.nl> wrote:
> Assuming that "the engine" indeed behaves as the "command" below, this would > not be too difficult to handle. I am happy that you do not propose to make > the > pipe between engine and scid a multiplex of the engine's stdout and stderr. > This would be really crazy to handle for scid. > > What makes the scenario a bit awkward is that it is pretty hard to make Scid > aware that the engine actually could have crashed. Your "scid application" > simply stops "command" and checks its exit code. Why would Scid ever > want to do that, except when it is the user who closes the engine window? > > Could be done on a timeout basis, but this is inherently risky. Maybe do it > only if the user stops the engine window? Yet would this be of any help? proc checkEngineIsAlive already checks if the engine exited unexpectedly. I assume this would be the place to do it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today http://p.sf.net/sfu/msIE9-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Scid-users mailing list Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
