On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:23:15AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006, Robert Millan wrote: > > Thanks for the ellaboration. This sounds like a strange race, though. It > > would require the user to launch the client before the server has finished > > its > > startup, which AFAICT can only be done from a shell that doesn't belong to > > this server session. > > I think the race is possible, otherwise there wouldn't be a special > case for it in the code. But perhaps it's possible to avoid the race > at a higher level. > > > Is this hack required for the initial X client? If this is so, waiting 5s > > is > > not a good solution to workaround lack of syncronisation anyway. > > The 5 second wait is coded in a generic fashion when the underlying > transport said connection is to be retried. The problem is not the 5 > second wait, but the fact that the transport said to retry, while it's > clear that the socket isn't there -- and won't appear. It's hard to > tell whether the socket might appear, but I think this question is for > higher level stacks. > > My opinion is that whoever creates the environment variable which lists > the socket should make sure the socket is available before spreading > the news,
It did, and at that time the socket was present. It's just that the socket is not there anymore. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
