You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: docs/platforms/native/advanced-usage/backend-tradeoffs/index.mdx
+3-2Lines changed: 3 additions & 2 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ Currently, `crashpad` is the default on all desktop platforms because it
18
18
* is the primary target for Sentry-developed extensions to the upstream implementation of backend handlers (most of which aren't a particular upside vs. the other backends, but changes to reach parity), including
19
19
* client-side stack traces (this is currently not available on `breakpad`)
20
20
* attachment handling
21
+
* retry mechanism for failed report uploads
21
22
* HTTP proxy support
22
23
* GCC and MinGW support
23
24
*`FirstChanceHandler` on Windows and extension of its synchronization to support Sentry hooks
@@ -39,7 +40,7 @@ In the above cases, if you cannot loosen the requirements of your environment, y
39
40
40
41
### How do I decide between `breakpad` or `inproc`?
41
42
42
-
Both backends are comparable in how they differ from `crashpad`. However, there are also considerable differences between the two:
43
+
Both backends are comparable in how they differ from `crashpad`. However, there are also considerable differences between the two:
43
44
44
45
*`inproc` only provides the backtrace of the crashing thread. `breakpad` records all threads in the minidump.
45
46
* similar to `crashpad`, `breakpad` uses the lowest level error handling mechanism on each platform (macOS: mach exception ports, Windows: `UnhandledExceptionFilter`, Linux: signal handlers), it does cover a smaller range of errors, though as mentioned above.
@@ -63,7 +64,7 @@ Both backends are comparable in how they differ from `crashpad`. However, there
63
64
64
65
If you dive into the details, you will find many trade-offs in the selection of backends. The above merely provides a first overview. Further, the above is only a snapshot of the current capabilities, where some trade-offs are incidental and do not follow a particular strategy or technological necessity. The primary reason for providing multiple backends is to cover as many user scenarios as possible, which requires a bit of insight if you decide to deviate from the defaults.
65
66
66
-
Sentry suggests the following sequence for your backend evaluations:
67
+
Sentry suggests the following sequence for your backend evaluations:
0 commit comments