From: Martin H. <ma...@so...> - 2011-08-25 07:31:30
|
Le 24/08/2011 09:56, David Baelde a écrit : > Hi Martin, > > I'm catching up on old mail... > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Martin Hamant<ma...@so...> wrote: >> Yes it unregister but there is a small amount of time right after the command (which returns "done!") that I suspect the process is still unregistering it. I suspect that because when I am removing a playlist then adding it another with the same ID *right after*, liquidsoap creates the playlist with a trailing ".1". If I wait like 200ms before adding again the playlist, it works like excepted. >> So I can't rely on the "done!" return value, to be my test criteria.... Or maybe I am doing something wrong. > You're not doing anything wrong, there isn't any other way of doing > things currently. If this is really critical we could provide you with > a better way to wait for the source to be really unregistered, more > solid than an ad-hoc timeout of 200ms -- or provide a blocking version > of source.shutdown which only returns when the source is really > stopped. If you want, create a feature request for that. But it seems > that the 200ms wait does the trick for you, so this is probably not a > priority -- bear in mind that we're already having trouble to find > time to fix bugs these days. > Hi david, This is *about* 200ms, but it mays happen with 1 or 2s, regarding to the system load context. But reasonably this is not really critical, the reason for this is streams are not *edited* frequently by users. (FYI; edit consist at the end of a consecutive delete/add). This being said, I will fill a feature request :) because like you said, this could be a more solid solution ! |