On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:40:09 +0100 Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:32:56PM -0500, Ed Onken wrote: > > At 09:21 PM 07/24/2002 -0500, Ed Onken wrote: > > > > As far as my below fix goes, I don't whether or not we want to fire > > a CollisionEvent or not when a CHK has a key collision. I don't > > know if it would confuse clients or not to have a insert succeed > > even when a key collision occurs. > I vote that we ignore CHK collisions at the client end, and just > document it somewhere. I do plenty of KeyCollision ignoring for CHKs already. But yes, it is rather unintuitive, and somewhat undocumented, that a KeyCollision for a CHK is Really Not A Bad Thing, but for most other types it is definitely a Bad Thing. No chance on getting the message changed this late in the game, eh? :) --hobbs
msg03519/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
