----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67139/#review203223 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! I think this seems fair, it the remote handle indicates an existing link object was already detached it doesnt seem there would be reason to return that while looking up something to indicate an attach for. - Robbie Gemmell On May 15, 2018, 7:03 p.m., Gordon Sim wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/67139/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 15, 2018, 7:03 p.m.) > > > Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh Murthy, Justin Ross, Robbie > Gemmell, and Ted Ross. > > > Bugs: PROTON-1845 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-1845 > > > Repository: qpid-proton-git > > > Description > ------- > > If a peer sends attach, detach, attach with the same link name in the second > attach, the PN_LINK_REMOTE_OPEN event contains a reference to the link from > the first attach. This link is not in a state where it can be reused. > > It would be better to treat this as starting a new link object. > > This fixes DISPATCH-994 and DISPATCH-997 > > > Diffs > ----- > > c/src/core/transport.c e0a2b5c > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67139/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Gordon Sim > >
