Re: Anyone Written a ReconnectingProxy Object?

On 07/02/2013 09:00 AM, Irmen de Jong wrote:
> That is certainly more efficient (it avoids the initial ping message). 
> But this will only work safely 100% with method calls that are 
> idempotent. Most operations don't have this property and calling the 
> method more than once will often result in undesired results. Why is 
> this a risk: a failure of the initial method call does not always 
> indicate that the call wasn't processed. It could have been a problem 
> with processing the response message. 

In my case I am expecting my server and clients will be running on the 
same machine, so I am assuming I will have few "communications errors", 
but I do expect that the server will be restarted occasionally. 
(Particularly during development.)

So I will have to worry about the server picking up its previous context 
as it prepares to respond to clients that did not restart. Oh, the ways 
I could get broken.  Then again, on a local machine, the cost of a ping 
is low.

Thanks,

-kb, the Kent who will probably have to write an "fsck" to check his 
server's state.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev