I believe what Bruce was saying is that the behavior should be covered by timeouts not iteration attempts. If the client is able to successfully send the command to a server but a failure occurs waiting for a reply we would not retry. If the client is unable to send the request to a sever because the connection closes then we would try the next server, and the next, up to the timeout value.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:31 PM Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I can also see why the user doing the retries themselves has value. As a > lowest common denominator approach, pulling the API is sound. > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > I think the setRetryAttempts really harks back to the case that Bruce was > > alluding to in which the server goes down. Which is the one valid case > for > > this kind of API in theory. Are we say that in that case we don't retry? > > Seems like we are making the API a little less nice for people. > > As a developer using an API, I want to do as little as possible and get > > the most robust solution possible. This seems to go the wrong direction > of > > that kind of intent in a way. I want the client to automatically try > every > > server. I don't ever want to configure the value. I could limit with this > > API and force it to never retry or I could cause it to retry more times > > than I care for it to. If we are going to get rid of this API in > > particular, I would favor having it automatically try some number of > > servers or all, but not retrying at all would not be my choice. > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> > >> > I would have to go looking, but the key concept is that this is a > bigger > >> > problem. > >> > > >> > interval such as the time between retries.... > >> > wait as in how long to wait for a response... > >> > > >> > >> All time intervals should be expressed in terms of std::chrono::duration > >> values. A value of std::chrono::duration::zero means don't wait. I would > >> suggest that a negative time not be allowed and that some very large, > >> MAXINT, value could take the place of "forever". There is a ticket > already > >> open and in progress to replace all time based values with std::chrono. > >> > >> > >> > retry as how many times to retry after a failure > >> > attempts as in how many times to do a thing before giving up > >> > Set of objects as in the setRetryAttempts code which , will try a > >> number of > >> > servers before giving up. where n is the number, -1 equals all, and 0 > >> means > >> > (1 server, no retries). > >> > > >> > >> If there are other examples of "iteration" then we should consider them > >> based on what they iterate. I think the consensus on setRetryAttempts is > >> to > >> abolish it. > >> > >> -Jake > >> > > > > >
