* Robert Hailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-17 11:07:55]:
>
> On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Author: nextgens
> > Date: 2007-12-17 00:11:57 +0000 (Mon, 17 Dec 2007)
> > New Revision: 16635
> >
> > Modified:
> > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java
> > Log:
> > Fix a silly bug which might have weird effects
> >
> > Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java
> > ===================================================================
> > --- trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java 2007-12-17
> > 00:11:18 UTC (rev 16634)
> > +++ trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java 2007-12-17
> > 00:11:57 UTC (rev 16635)
> > @@ -246,13 +246,13 @@
> > } else {
> > sendTerminal(df);
> > }
> > - return;
> > } else {
> > if(!rs.transferStarted()) {
> > Logger.error(this, "Status is SUCCESS
> > but we never started a
> > transfer on "+uid);
> > }
> > // Wait for transfer to start
> > }
> > + return;
> > case RequestSender.VERIFY_FAILURE:
> > if(key instanceof NodeCHK) {
> > if(shouldHaveStartedTransfer)
> >
>
> I'm not so sure... when I was reviewing the code earlier the comment
> "wait for transfer to start" made me think this was intentional.
> Specifically, that the code will loop and consider it again?
>
> Certainly returning immediately is not waiting for the transfer to
> start, although... as written it would simply run on into the
> VERIFY_FAILURE action
...Which is sending an FNPRejectedOverload message... That's definitly not what we want to do in that case. Let's "continue" instead... see r16659 NextGen$
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
