[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The checksum statement ++
From: |
Jan-Henrik Haukeland |
Subject: |
Re: The checksum statement ++ |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:06:56 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Civil Service, linux) |
Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:
> And what about the first proposal, send today 12:43 (generalization
> of timeout statement and timeout event hard error classification +
> its broadcasting through dependency tree)?
It's not bad but I feel it's a bit of a workaround to connect it to
timeout. But as you mentioned having an event (especially checksum)
propagate upwards in the dependency tree is important. Maybe using a
new STOP_MONITORING event or something is better (cleaner)? I don't
know.
I need to investigate your proposal and the control.c code more to see
it better. But right now, I think we could doucment us out of the
problem and maybe refactor the code in a later 4.1 version. What do
you think?
--
Jan-Henrik Haukeland