What about the event of a server failure? You could wait for a server response indefinitely in that case.
On Monday, 18 April 2016, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> wrote: > yeah - it could be good - though based on a separate conversation, i wonder > if the console needs this timeout at all. Seems like you could just rely on > the server timeout - under what circumstance would you want to timeout the > console before the server was done processing? i guess I'd originally put > that timeout in there to ensure that the user didn't have to be blocked > indefinitely awaiting an answer from the server. At that point all they > could do was ctrl-c to hard exit the console. With the timeout, the > console would just stop waiting for a response and return control to the > user. Not sure if that's weird or not. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Dylan Millikin <dylan.milli...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > I like this change. Makes sense. > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > I just created this issue about the console and "remote timeouts": > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1267 > > > > > > Basically, I'd like to add: > > > > > > :remote config timeout none > > > > > > as a replacement for > > > > > > :remote config timeout max > > > > > > "none" seems like a more fitting term than "max" for what a user would > > want > > > to do. I think we can continue to support max for now but "deprecate" > it > > > by only promoting use of "none". We can drop "max" at some point in the > > > future. > > > > > >
