gee i thought i was the first to say deadly-embrace on this thread. it's not only problematic it's wrong. just reiterating what little shaun said circa 1999.
brucee On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:02 AM, roger peppe <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 October 2010 17:01, Charles Forsyth <[email protected]> wrote: >>>Do you do completely asynch clunks or just the wait for the response?. >> >> it uses `completely' async clunks, which is why it can be broken. >> >> having the original process send the Tclunk and not wait >> for the Rclunk is different. > > for some reason, though i didn't look at the diffs, i thought > that's what this patch did. > > even sending Tclunk synchronously is still problematic in quite a few > scenarios, > for the reasons i outlined above. > >
