http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660I am pointing out the flaw in sync remote calls. Yes, this IS how most service calls are done. The model is broken. http://ayende.com/3437/unstable-code-how-a-blocking-remote-call-can-take-down-an-application#comment4http://ayende.com/3437/unstable-code-how-a-blocking-remote-call-can-take-down-an-application#comment4Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:25:41 GMTSoo, here's what I don't get - the line you show should be responsible for being "unblockable"? Sounds a bit sansationalist because this is just any old service call? I could of completely missed the point of course.. http://ayende.com/3437/unstable-code-how-a-blocking-remote-call-can-take-down-an-application#comment3http://ayende.com/3437/unstable-code-how-a-blocking-remote-call-can-take-down-an-application#comment3Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:59:17 GMTwell, i know that you're reading Release It, and the book proposes the Circuit Breaker pattern to deal with these kind of issues i've provided a (simple) implementation of the pattern here: http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/05/the-circuit-breaker/ it needs more work to be production-ready but it might be a good start http://ayende.com/3437/unstable-code-how-a-blocking-remote-call-can-take-down-an-application#comment2http://ayende.com/3437/unstable-code-how-a-blocking-remote-call-can-take-down-an-application#comment2Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:38:29 GMTAll I can say is that I entirely agree. From my perspective it's very simple. If you don't specify a timeout value you ask for trouble. I described the same problem but at a lower level on my blog: http://pabich.eu/blog/archive/2008/04/16/never-ever-synchronize-threads-without-specifying-a-timeout-value.aspx http://ayende.com/3437/unstable-code-how-a-blocking-remote-call-can-take-down-an-application#comment1http://ayende.com/3437/unstable-code-how-a-blocking-remote-call-can-take-down-an-application#comment1Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:06:29 GMT