Hi Michael,
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 11:58 +0000, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi guys, > > I just got: > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=512520 > > and I wonder if this is one of the issues that the timeout stuff was > added to get around ;-) The timeout stuff was specifically added to get around the problem of being blocked forever if a remote server is powered down or physically disconnected. It only applies for AF_INET and AF_INET6 (but not for oneways). > It makes me wonder - why do we bother trying to re-connect so > vigorously ? [ I add a few queries at the end of the bug ]. > > I think it should be the case that we distinguish between a connection > that we received CLOSECONNECTION on before the connection died, and one > where the cnx just died unexpectedly. > > The latter we should not try to re-connect (or at least not so > hard ;-), the former we should. > > What do people think ? It might complicate matters that a CLOSECONNECTION is sent when we get a timeout - giop-recv-buffer.c:giop_timeout() - i.e. no clear distinction between a timeout and other types of connection failures except if we look at the link state. But yes, some kind of distinction between the various ways a connection could die would properly be a good idea, when decide whether we should try to re-connect, although I've no clear idea of what precisely to do implementation-wise. Best regards, jules _______________________________________________ orbit-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-list
