[Sugar-devel] Killing activities when memory gets short

Gary Martin garycmartin at googlemail.com
Sun Aug 8 03:17:03 EDT 2010

On 8 Aug 2010, at 01:37, Marco Pesenti Gritti <marco at marcopg.org> wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2010, at 21:08, Tiago Marques <tiagomnm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just killing a random activity is a terrible idea becayse you don't want your product behaving like it's defective; the pop up idea is way more acceptable(and a lot better than having the system randomly behaving like it's crashed). Either way, this is the extremely important use of swap memory that doesn't exist here. I understand your engineering constraints on the hardware but randomly killing activities is poised to confuse users and cause people considering the hardware for deployment to think that you're selling them something defective/baddly manufactured.
> As long as activities are saving and restoring properly it could be made pretty much transparent to the user. Of course that's easier said then done...

+1, that would be an ideal solution. Minimal interface distinction between active and dormant activities; fast resume (perhaps some visual trickery using the thumbnail image to help cover any delay); improve activity UI state saving.


> Marco 
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

More information about the Devel mailing list