On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:29:04 -0800, dormando wrote: > I think we're aiming for orthogonal. Although none of these options > really sit that well with me. > > With noreply you can still end up doing: > > set blah 0 0 2 > hi > set another 0 0 3 noreply > bye > set more 0 0 3 > foo > > ... then when you read, did the error come from the first or third set?
Separate on/off are 100% safe only when on/off itself has a reply, hence the overhead. Currently 'noreply' will still send the error if the command has wrong number of tokens, and thus no attempt is made to parse it (though I could parse it, I think that wouldn't be right). To help this a bit we may add a startup option to the server, 'close_on_error', and use it for some errors that should never be ignored, so the error condition won't go unnoticed. -- Tomash Brechko