On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:20:23PM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, I think it would be useful to log one message if after (say) 5
> > > seconds we still haven't been able to open the file.
> >
> > Either that, or on the first run.
>
> Imho 1-5s is better, so that would be after the 10-50th try.
Ok, so I'll put in a warning after 50 tries.
> > loop. It's supposed to loop 300 times.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > (Are we OK with the idea of sleeping 1 second each time?)
> >
> > I think not. 0.1 seconds is better. We don't want to delay a full
> second if
> > it's just a transient thing.
>
> Yes 0.1 s is imho good. Btw. m$ is talking about milliseconds
> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316609)
Their sample code sleeps for 0.25 seconds though. (Sleep() takes
milliseconds). So we're definitely fine with 0.1sec I think.
//Magnus