Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
I assume these errors have been happening since the code was changed 2 weeks
ago.
Where are the errors reported? In the event log, or on stderr (which is
directed to
a file). Paul and I are wondering how we missed it! :)
Original comment by boulton.rj@gmail.com
on 23 Nov 2007 at 11:56
This should be fixed now, anyway; an import of "threading" was missing. I've
not
tested at all, though, and it would be nice to understand how flax was
apparently
shutting down successfully, so I'll leave this open for now.
Original comment by boulton.rj@gmail.com
on 23 Nov 2007 at 12:00
Note that there was also an import of "time" missing. We should maybe do
something to
get better notification of such exceptions when running as a service - you've
got to
decide to open the event viewer app before you realise that there was an
exception
raised.
Original comment by paul.x.r...@googlemail.com
on 23 Nov 2007 at 2:08
It might be useful to send such exceptions to the (flax) log as critical
errors. (We
already do this for the indexer process.) This would make them a bit more
visible.
Other than that, I'm not sure there's much we can do.
Original comment by boulton.rj@gmail.com
on 23 Nov 2007 at 2:29
We should continue to log them to the windows system log, too, though.
Presumably
properly administered servers will have their logs monitored.
Original comment by boulton.rj@gmail.com
on 23 Nov 2007 at 2:31
Once issue 91 is done then the logging setup is easier to fiddle with.
Original comment by paul.x.r...@googlemail.com
on 25 Nov 2007 at 4:09
Part of the difficulty in this windows service stuff is there doesn't appear to
be a
definitive description of how the service infrastructure expects services to
behave
or how it behaves itself in various situations.
Original comment by paul.x.r...@googlemail.com
on 26 Nov 2007 at 9:47
Service now uninstalls without errors. Retitled.
Original comment by charliej...@gmail.com
on 27 Nov 2007 at 5:01
With the new title isn't this essentially a duplicate of issue 91? Which is not
on
the milestone.
Original comment by paul.x.r...@googlemail.com
on 28 Nov 2007 at 8:44
Yes, it is. It doesn't need to be done for the milestone, I believe. Marking
as
fixed, and changing the title back to avoid confusion - if anyone thinks the
logging
needs to be done for the milestone, mark #91 accordingly.
Original comment by boulton.rj@gmail.com
on 28 Nov 2007 at 9:15
Original comment by boulton.rj@gmail.com
on 28 Nov 2007 at 9:16
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
charliej...@gmail.com
on 23 Nov 2007 at 11:43