Yeah - that was my thinking but, really, it could be done more often. Maybe 1/3 instead of 2/3? It wouldn’t do any harm really. Just as long as it doesn’t turn into a spin loop.
-Jordan > On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:13 AM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jordan, do you remember what the rationale behind only waiting for 2/3 of > the session timeout is? It's something to do with the way that ZK itself > handles session timeouts isn't it? Does ZK timeout the session if it hasn't > received a heartbeat for 2/3 of the session timeout? I can't remember. > cheers
