Author |
|
bhlonewolf Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2007
Online Status: Offline Posts: 198
|
Posted: June 02 2008 at 15:43 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quick question -- is there a "durability" difference between a macro that is waiting vs a timed event?
In my case I want to run a dehumidifier for a certain amount of time -- but I'll vary it based on humidity levels. When the macro starts, it turns on the appliance, calculates the time out, then ... I can either wait until timeout, or just set a timed event for now+timeout.
Is there a difference between the two in terms of durability? If PH or my machine restarts for whatever reason, I was thinking the timed event would be more durable, but that might not be the case.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
TonyNo Moderator Group
Joined: December 05 2001 Location: United States
Online Status: Offline Posts: 2889
|
Posted: June 02 2008 at 17:35 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Good question! I would go with a Timed Event, but...
I await a response from DTG!
|
Back to Top |
|
|
bhlonewolf Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2007
Online Status: Offline Posts: 198
|
Posted: June 02 2008 at 21:52 | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well, to be honest... originally I was thinking a timed event seemed to make more sense. However, I'm thinking that waiting macros may be more durable in my case. Here's why.
First, there are two options when starting PH -- "execute past events" and "resume waiting macros." I never paid attention to resume waiting macros, but I had purposefully left execute past events disabled. I have timed events run external executables, and if I keep PH off for some reason, running it with this option can be disaster. (Yeah, I can simply prompt for it, I realize.)
But with it disabled, obviously timed events won't get fired if their execute time has passed.
But waiting macros will still execute.
So in my setup, waiting macros actually seem more reliable/durable, but figured there could be other cases I wasn't thinking of.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
|
|