On Tuesday 16 June 2009 19:53:48 Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > We might want to wait until we have finished with the opennet
> > connection limit changes, but IMHO this is a good idea too.
> >
> > Basically, requests would have a flag, whic
On Jun 13, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We might want to wait until we have finished with the opennet
> connection limit changes, but IMHO this is a good idea too.
>
> Basically, requests would have a flag, which is either bulk or
> realtime.
>
> Currently, we only allow new r
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 19:53:48 Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > We might want to wait until we have finished with the opennet
> > connection limit changes, but IMHO this is a good idea too.
> >
> > Basically, requests would have a flag, whic
On Jun 13, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We might want to wait until we have finished with the opennet
> connection limit changes, but IMHO this is a good idea too.
>
> Basically, requests would have a flag, which is either bulk or
> realtime.
>
> Currently, we only allow new r
We might want to wait until we have finished with the opennet connection limit
changes, but IMHO this is a good idea too.
Basically, requests would have a flag, which is either bulk or realtime.
Currently, we only allow new requests if our current requests can be completed
within available band
We might want to wait until we have finished with the opennet connection limit
changes, but IMHO this is a good idea too.
Basically, requests would have a flag, which is either bulk or realtime.
Currently, we only allow new requests if our current requests can be completed
within available band
