On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
>
>> * Robert Hailey <robert at emu.freenetproject.org> [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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20071217/a2c291cc/attachment.html>
