Here how we could do :
>Okay, I basically agree with you. I'll take out
>the check for errno and just have recv() == -1
>be considered a recoverable error (i.e: retry it).
>However, I disagree with making the retry in a
>loop for RETRIES times. This is because if one
>retry fails, this means this error condition may
>not be recoverable without any human interventions.
We must retry against eventual other workers in a
LoadBalancing system. I must verify that my patch
allow that.
>What is the point of retrying more than once?
No problem, I'll retry 3 times. It's a special
case, exception, so we could spend some time to
re-establish the connection to a working unit.
>My goal is not to wait for TC to come back up
>or to wait for TC to be in a good state. My goal
>is, if TC is in a good state already, why tell
>the caller that it's an error.
+1
>Opinions?
I agree, with the new version you could see that we try
X time to send the request. It wasn't the case previously
which make me think that load-balancing was only working
on active server, but failed completly when one of then
was stopped.
We
jk_ajp13_worker.c.diff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
