I'm assuming by the lack of responses that people either don't use ns_db much or don't use the -timeout arg to it, or wouldn't be affected by the change to the -timeout behavior mentioned below.
If this assumption is wrong, please speak up. Thanks. -- Dossy On 2004.02.05, Dossy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone here who uses ns_db in AOLserver, raise your hand! Okay, good. > Of those of you with your hand up, how many use ns_db gethandle with the > -timeout arg? > > Has anyone noticed that (at least in AS4.0) the -timeout behavior > doesn't agree with the docs? Has anyone noticed (or cared) that you > can't get a non-blocking "ns_db gethandle"? The docs hint that if you > pass a -1, you'll get non-blocking (which is just weird anyway). > > Well, I've committed a small two-line patch to nsdb so that we DO get a > non-blocking ns_db gethandle, but I've also changed the semantics, so > I'd like to get an idea of how much "backwards compatibility" I've > broken for everyone. > > Here's my thoughts: > > 1) Large number of users of ns_db don't even specify -timeout. New > behavior will be identical as old behavior, which is to block > indefinitely. > > 2) Of those who specify -timeout, they specify a value greater than > zero. New behavior will be identical as old behavior, which is to use > the value specified as timeout in seconds. > > 3) *!* Of those who specify -timeout as 0, previous behavior was to block > indefinitely. New behavior is a non-blocking gethandle. *!* > > 4) Of those who specify -timeout as -1, the docs indicate non-blocking > but the actual behavior was block indefinitely. New behavior is to > block indefinitely, so functionally, no change. > > So, the people who are affected in a backwards-compatible fashion are > those people who explicitly specified -timeout 0 *INTENDING* to get the > old block-indefinitely behavior but will NOW get the new non-blocking > behavior. How many of you people with your hands still raised have ANY > code that would be affected by this? > > More curiously: How many of you have specified -timeout 0 without > reading the docs expecting to get a non-blocking gethandle, while you've > been getting a block-indefinitely one all this while? > > -- Dossy > > -- > Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ > "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own > folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) > > > -- > AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ > > To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with > the > body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field > of your email blank. -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
