On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Robert Hailey wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Robert Hailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-17
11:07:55]:
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$
I'm still confused by that comment. If we continue & loop, will the
status ever change from SUCCESS? And why is this behavior so much
different from a SSK block?
--
Robert Hailey
Ok... I've convinced myself that simply looping won't do anything
useful (as best I can tell it will just get caught on the
waitUntilStatusChange();).
Apparently (in r14068) the return statement was purposefully dropped/
moved, and the comment in question was added. I'd let Matthew decide.
Perhaps sending a failure notify is what is wanted?
--
Robert Hailey
r14068-20070713-toad-"Fix opennet allow-re-add logic, drop unused
variable completedHandshake from PeerNode"
[...]
Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java
===================================================================
--- trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java 2007-07-13
13:21:16 UTC (rev 14067)
+++ trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java 2007-07-13
13:38:13 UTC (rev 14068)
@@ -184,12 +184,13 @@
Message pk = DMT.createFNPSSKPubKey(uid,
((NodeSSK)rs.getSSKBlock().getKey()).getPubKey());
source.sendSync(pk, this);
}
+ 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)
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
