pan-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Pan-users] Proper behavior of "backup" servers? [DIAGNOSED]


From: Duncan
Subject: Re: [Pan-users] Proper behavior of "backup" servers? [DIAGNOSED]
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:34:14 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 7e49a9b /st/portage/src/egit-src/pan2)

walt posted on Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:51:18 +0000 as excerpted:

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:29:41 +0000, walt wrote:
> 
>> I discovered that setting gmane.org to "backup server" prevents pan
>> from ever asking gmane for articles that I click on in the header pane.
> 
> The reason pan was refusing to fetch articles from gmane.org is that I
> had another server set as "primary" AND set to zero connections.
> 
> I think pan was waiting for that primary server to ask for the article
> first -- but of course pan couldn't ask the primary server because its
> number of connections was set to zero.  Setting that primary server to
> "fallback" allowed pan to query all the other fallback servers,
> including gmane.
> 
> This isn't exactly a bug, but the behavior is unexpected.  Maybe pan
> should refuse to set a primary server to zero connections?  Or at least
> give us a warning?

Hmm... that's... interesting.

The zero-connections-means-disabled thing was added much later than 
server priorities, possibly by khaley after he took over from Charles.  
If indeed it was by khaley, he probably wasn't aware of the implications 
at all, or if by Charles (which it really seems too new for, but...), he 
probably forgot that it might interact with server priority.

In any case, it /shouldn't/ be too difficult to add a check to see if all 
servers at a particular level are disabled, with ones at a higher level 
(lower priority) still enabled, and warn in that case.

Either that or simply make the priority check bypass disabled servers, so 
it would "just work" as expected, and no warning would be needed.  IMO 
this is more intuitive, tho it /could/ arguably give someone a nasty 
surprise if the backup server is gig-limited or expensive per-gig, and 
they forgot they'd disabled the primary(s).  But I'd argue that's a
PEBKAC[1] if so, and pan shouldn't need to worry about it.

---
[1] Problem exists between keyboard and chair.  Look it up on wikipedia 
if necessary.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]