Github user alanconway commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/142
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>
wrote:
> The use of "invalid-field" for the error feels like it is maybe a little
> off. Its possible/likely there is nothing wrong with the information in
the
> fields of the attach, as none of it is really actually checked (e.g
whether
> its the same remote handle, itself a session:handle-in-use error) other
> than someone got there previously with the name. Perhaps "illegal-state"
> might be more applicable given the actual check being done?
>
> That said though, its not actually 100% clear it is an illegal state. The
> spec covers attaching an active link a second time as resulting in the
> first attachment being detached with the "stolen" link error. Its
described
> for handling across different connections (something proton thus cant
> actually do on its own) e.g during reconnect, but its not clear that
> precludes it being the case on a single session or connection. However, it
> does seem far more likely to be in result of an error for the situation to
> ever occur on a single session/connection so perhaps treating it as such
is
> the way to go in the end (plus any alternative would I guess be much
harder
> to achieve, so maybe its the only choice for now).
>
Thanks - I didn't know about stolen. I think we could implement what the
spec says on the server side - close the old link/handle with "stolen" and
create a new link under the new handle. That would fix the crash, which was
because of multiple handles to the same link object - we'd have a seprate
link object for each handle, all but one of which are closed with "stolen".
I think on the client side its always an error to try to attach if you
already have a link with same name an a handle. After disconnect all
handles are cleared, so it is OK an error to re-attach during reconnect. I
want to fix the client to refuse to create a link at all in this case. That
would prevent this happening on the wire and give more immediate feedback
to code that is mistakenly trying to double-attach. The fix is not trivial
due to proton's batch-processing madness or I'd have done it first.
Does that sound right?
Cheers,
Alan.
> â
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/142#issuecomment-384909833>,
> or mute the thread
>
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHa6XkfJqlyZLxyGacl_EEvpcsQVuXAvks5tst1zgaJpZM4TkKfO>
> .
>
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
