[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Cancellation forwarding protocol (was Re: Reliability of RPC service

From: Pierre THIERRY
Subject: Re: Cancellation forwarding protocol (was Re: Reliability of RPC services)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:37:32 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403

Scribit Jonathan S. Shapiro dies 27/04/2006 hora 05:18:
> > But I'm not sure it is what I want. In fact, now I'm pretty sure
> > it's not. To just block subsequent replies is needed upon
> > completion, but for cancellation forwarding you need a bit more.
> Can you say why you believe this? I think there is a hidden assumption
> here that may be mistaken.

My assumption, confirmed by what you say just below, is that the check
you're suggesting needs to invoke the capability to the FCRB, thus
needing to page it in, and the owner of the FCRB then to process the
incoming activation.

> From the perspective of the invoker, there is no difference in
> behavior between invoking a Null cap and invoking a cap with a
> non-matching payload.

But section 6.1 describes the invocation of a FCRB sender's capability,
and it seems to always lead to a delivery.

So how do you intend the watchdog to perform the test? And how the
client is supposed to discriminate between the test and the actual

Nowhere man
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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