On 04.02.2016 18:33, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 03:40:20PM +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote:
>> remoteConnectUnregisterCloseCallback is not quite good.
>> if it is given a callback function different from that
>> was registered before then local part will fail silently.
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 03:40:20PM +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote:
> remoteConnectUnregisterCloseCallback is not quite good.
> if it is given a callback function different from that
> was registered before then local part will fail silently. On
> the other hand we can not gracefully handle this
remoteConnectUnregisterCloseCallback is not quite good.
if it is given a callback function different from that
was registered before then local part will fail silently. On
the other hand we can not gracefully handle this fail
as the remote part is already unregistered.
There are a lot of options
remoteConnectUnregisterCloseCallback is not quite good.
if it is given a callback function different from that
was registered before then local part will fail silently. On
the other hand we can not gracefully handle this fail
as the remote part is already unregistered.
There are a lot of options