Session Issues

[vertigo]

I like the idea of tab sessions to restore multiple opened images, but there are a couple issues that make it unreliable which, for such a feature, makes it risky to use and therefore not only useless, but worse than nothing, because it can lead to the expectation that the session will be saved/restored when, in fact, it very well might not be.

The first issue is that it saves the session on exit, rather than in real-time (like browsers do). This is problematic because in the event of a crash, either of XnView or the OS, the session will not be saved.

The second issue is that any images in the session not accessible when the program starts (e.g. on a flash drive that's not plugged in or an encrypted drive that's locked) are simply "lost" as there is no tab for them. This would be like a web browser restoring a session and simply discarding tabs for sites not accessible, perhaps due to the site being temporarily down or because the tab was for a logged in page (e.g. email) on a site where the user is no longer logged in. Of course, this doesn't happen, and browsers simply show the tab with an error, allowing the user to refresh it or to log back in to get it back. XnView doesn't provide this opportunity.

[xnview]

The first issue is that it saves the session on exit, rather than in real-time (like browsers do). This is problematic because in the event of a crash, either of XnView or the OS, the session will not be saved.

Yes will be better

The second issue is that any images in the session not accessible when the program starts (e.g. on a flash drive that's not plugged in or an encrypted drive that's locked) are simply "lost" as there is no tab for them.

It's already like that, image will not be opened in a tab, no?

[jkm]

The first issue is that it saves the session on exit, rather than in real-time (like browsers do). This is problematic because in the event of a crash, either of XnView or the OS, the session will not be saved.

If you are frequently losing work due to crashes because the session is not saved in real-time, I think that really the problem that needs to be addressed is the crashing rather than the session mechanism.

[vertigo]

The second issue is that any images in the session not accessible when the program starts (e.g. on a flash drive that's not plugged in or an encrypted drive that's locked) are simply "lost" as there is no tab for them.

It's already like that, image will not be opened in a tab, no?
[/quote]

Correct, the image isn't opened, which is the problem. It causes that image to be lost/forgotten.

[vertigo]

The first issue is that it saves the session on exit, rather than in real-time (like browsers do). This is problematic because in the event of a crash, either of XnView or the OS, the session will not be saved.

If you are frequently losing work due to crashes because the session is not saved in real-time, I think that really the problem that needs to be addressed is the crashing rather than the session mechanism.

I really can't stand this argument. First of all, it doesn't "frequently" happen. All it takes is *once* and it can cause a massive headache. And regardless of how often, or what other problems there may be, none of that matters; the simple fact is, the whole point of a session feature is to be able to save/resume sessions, and it shouldn't matter whether that's through saving or crashing.

[jkm]

I really can't stand this argument.

Sadly, that's life, so I guess you'll just have to stand it.

First of all, it doesn't "frequently" happen. All it takes is *once* and it can cause a massive headache.

I think it's reasonable for people who are trying to troubleshoot, and possibly alter the software, in order to help YOU, to want to understand the nature of the request, and what's important about it. Crashing is a higher priority matter. And you went out of your way to make this sound very important.

So it doesn't happen frequently. So you're asking for the software to be changed based on something that happens seldom, or once. That's helpful for prioritization.

This is in the bug report forum. I was curious if there was an important defect to be uncovered here (crashing). But you just want the session mechanism to be changed. Ok.

But "massive headache", "risky to use", "worse than nothing".... You're ringing the alarm bell pretty loud for something that doesn't frequently happen, and it's beginning to sound like a simple feature request from someone who likes to use a lot of hyperbole.

And regardless of how often, or what other problems there may be, none of that matters; the simple fact is, the whole point of a session feature is to be able to save/resume sessions, and it shouldn't matter whether that's through saving or crashing.

But it does matter. Just not to you, evidently.

Browsers and web pages crash a lot, which is why they have session mechanisms. Lots of applications don't have session mechanisms at all, especially apps that are primarily viewers and not editors. I've never found XnViewMP to be glaringly deficient in this way, considering the context.

And there's not a huge team of developers working on this program. Pierre is working hard trying to do a lot of things to improve the app, and prioritization happens. So yeah, it actually does matter if there's a crashing problem, or a frequently occurring bug, or a frequent need of a lot of users, or a single user request for a feature change.

You will perhaps be pleased to hear that the next version will have new session capabilities. So I'd suggest you wait and see how Pierre has decided to enhance the session mechanism.

Cheers...