Rico Jansen wrote: > > > START OF CALL: 2004-09-22 > > END OF CALL: 2004-09-27 > > > >Accept the new multicast/unicast code: > > [X] -1 (NO), because : > > No I don't accept the code as is , since by removing the spawn per message > it will break when a message gets handled incorrectly. When an exception > occurs for a local message, future messages both local and remote won't > be handled.
I have not looked into the code, but the logic of that escapes me. If an exception would be that fatal (e.g. in some daemon), it should be catched. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US
