Misread it the first time. Ship It! On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/67139/ > > Ship it! > > I think this seems fair, it the remote handle indicates an existing link > object was already detached it doesnt seem there would be reason to return > that while looking up something to indicate an attach for. > > > - Robbie Gemmell > > On May 15th, 2018, 7:03 p.m. UTC, Gordon Sim wrote: > Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh Murthy, Justin Ross, Robbie > Gemmell, and Ted Ross. > By Gordon Sim. > > *Updated May 15, 2018, 7:03 p.m.* > *Bugs: * PROTON-1845 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-1845> > *Repository: * qpid-proton-git > Description > > If a peer sends attach, detach, attach with the same link name in the second > attach, the PN_LINK_REMOTE_OPEN event contains a reference to the link from > the first attach. This link is not in a state where it can be reused. > > It would be better to treat this as starting a new link object. > > This fixes DISPATCH-994 and DISPATCH-997 > > Diffs > > - c/src/core/transport.c (e0a2b5c) > > View Diff <https://reviews.apache.org/r/67139/diff/1/> >
