<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - Concurrent --convert-to pdf sessions fail silently" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120676#c2">Comment # 2</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - Concurrent --convert-to pdf sessions fail silently" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120676">bug 120676</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:neil.youngman@wirefast.com" title="Neil Youngman <neil.youngman@wirefast.com>"> Neil Youngman</a> <pre>Saying that a failure to perform a requested function is not a bug seems to be taking "it's a feature not a bug" jokes a little too far. It seems to be an unintended consequence of other design decisions and, at the very least, it's a violation of the principle of least surprise. As someone who is not familiar with the architecture of LibreOffice, it's not obvious that if I request a standalone conversion that it would/should connect to a prior instance and ask that to perform the operation. Similarly I would not necessarily expect such a job to perform operations for other instances and continue running until there are no more client instances expecting it to run jobs for them. As a practical solution for my immediate needs I believe the workaround I have will allow me to run independent jobs in parallel. Conceptually it seems to me that the headless option needs to be split into 2 different options, a headless server and a standalone one-shot operation.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>