Hi,
Le Monday 30 May 2005 16:45, Delirium a écrit :
Tim Starling wrote:
I should add, queueing would be an appropriate
response to cluster-wide
lag times of up to a few seconds. The request could be queued until a
slave with zero lag time becomes available. Serving an error message
only becomes appropriate when the expected queueing time is long enough
that the user would want an explanation.
As one (frequent) user, I prefer the queueing response to slowness
(which seems to be what used to happen) to the error-message response
(which seems to happen fairly regularly now). I've talked to a few
other people who feel similarly, though I don't know what the most
common preference would be. If there's queueing, at least you know your
request will get served eventually, even if you have to go get a cup of
coffee first; with the error-message responses, you just have to keep
hitting reload, which is more irritating.
-Mark
If I may add my POV, I got time to time an error after inserting some text.
However the text was properly inserted. In many cases (minor edits, vote,
etc.), I don't need to view the result of my change. So in these cases, I
just want to know that my change is incorporated, and I will be happy with a
mere "Change saved" message, and that would be much better than an error
message. I will also save some server resources as I will not need to reload
the page.
It could be an option in the preferences:
[X] Do not show / reload the page after a minor edit.
My O.02 €.
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux