Dnia 2012-10-15, pon o godzinie 02:22 +0200, Alexandre Jousset pisze:
We talked earlier about weighted randomization instead of
priorities. With weighted randomization it is impossible to be sure
that a local component will be preferred, this is why I made an
implicit priority for
Le 15/10/2012 10:03, Tomasz Sterna a écrit :
Dnia 2012-10-15, pon o godzinie 02:22 +0200, Alexandre Jousset pisze:
We talked earlier about weighted randomization instead of
priorities. With weighted randomization it is impossible to be sure
that a local component will be preferred,
Dnia 2012-10-15, pon o godzinie 12:15 +0200, Alexandre Jousset pisze:
But I still don't see a rationale, why local components are better
than
remote ones?
Why does local component should be preferred just because the
connection
happened to come from local c2s?
Going to a
Le 15/10/2012 14:43, Tomasz Sterna a écrit :
Dnia 2012-10-15, pon o godzinie 12:15 +0200, Alexandre Jousset pisze:
But I still don't see a rationale, why local components are better
than
remote ones?
Why does local component should be preferred just because the
connection
happened to come
I respond to this message back in time to ask a question:
Le 11/09/2012 13:35, Tomasz Sterna a écrit :
[...]
Components have its own names.
Each component needs to be uniquely named.
Is it because components could previously have same names that there is «
Le 15/10/2012 19:38, Tomasz Sterna a écrit :
Dnia 2012-10-15, pon o godzinie 18:29 +0200, Alexandre Jousset pisze:
Is it because components could previously have same names that
there is « switch(targets-rtype) » at router/router.c:502, and all
the multi attribute, route_MULTI_TO and
