On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Paul Bailey <PaulBailey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I always compile interactively [...]
[...] Can anyone think of good reasons to always compile in batch instead of interactively?
I always compile in batch, but I only compile from the green screen,
so maybe my views don't translate to an RDi-based workflow.
I guess the primary reason I see for choosing batch over interactive
is responsiveness of the session. If compilation happens to take a
while, then interactive compilation locks up my session. Even if
compilation is quick, I haven't lost anything by compiling in batch. I
imagine RDi is threaded so that it doesn't lock up regardless.
For my personal (PDM-based) workflow, batch also has the advantage
that I can easily find the compile listing by looking at one job's
spooled files instead of wading through the output for various
commands. Again, I could conceive of this not being an issue with RDi.
So, the way I imagine RDi working, it doesn't make a difference
whether compilation is batch or interactive. (From RDi's perspective,
I would think it's all effectively "batch" anyway, in that everything
has to be "submitted" to the i.) In which case, yeah, if interactive
has better "event file characteristics", then go with that.
(I guess it's *conceivable* that you could have lots of developers all
logged into an underpowered i, which is also serving a lot of
interactive users, and maybe in this case if all the developers are
busy compiling stuff, it would be better that they do it in batch?
Maybe?)
John Y.
midrange.com
