Re: [Evolution] Thoughts on one process-per window + state recovery on crash?

[Nick Jenkins <nickpj gmail com>]

> > 1) State recovery: Would it make sense to have Evo restore all open
> > windows on reopening after a crash,
>
> That's actually near the top of my to-do list.
> [...snip...]
> This would also let you shut down your computer with Evolution still
> running, and Evolution would appear as you left it when you log back
> in.

Yay, that sounds fantastic! I've logged
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622680 , which hopefully
covers essentially what you're describing above.

> > 2) Crash impact reduction via process isolation:
> The strange thing is that one of the major improvements to Evo when
> going from 1.x to 2.x (I think) was getting rid of the individual
> processes for each component and amalgamating them into one threaded
> executable. :-)
> The problem really comes down to how the individual processes and
> windows interact and synchronise - as far as I can see with something
> like a browser the individual windows/tabs etc are essentially
> autonomous and independent, whereas with a groupware application there
> is considerably more interaction between the components.

... and ...

> Evolution actually did work much like that in the early, early days.
> Implementing a large, complex, tightly-integrated, multi-purpose
> application is enough of a PITA when everything is in one process.
> Trying to implement that kind of tight integration via inter-process
> communication is just unwieldy.  I believe that's what was found the
> first time around, and I'm not all that anxious to return to that
> model.

That all makes good sense - i.e. that there's more interaction between
the different components than in most apps, such that the added weight
of separation + adding all the needed communication methods exceeds the
benefit of that separation. Discard that idea then!

-- All the best,
Nick.