I'd have to extensively review the current PeerNode code to make sure my understanding isn't outdated, but I prefer the current variable names which contain the idea of their value being verified and aren't mixed up directly with the idea of routability. OTOH, I'm probably a little biased, they being originally my variable names IIRC.
Robert Hailey wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On Thursday 03 January 2008 16:29, Robert Hailey wrote: >>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>>> Please restore the original version. It looks like it was correct >>>> after all, >>>> and the problem is not fetching ARKs when verified*=true. >>> >>> If you really want me to, I certainly will, but... if you and nextgens >>> agree that it is benign to active connections, and in my reasoning >>> prevents a deadlock for long disconnections... why? I think that it >>> would be more useful to simply rename the identifiers to be more >>> intuitive until the ark problem is solved to your satisfaction (e.g. >>> as David said he may). >> >> No, IMHO we should unconditionally recompute verified*, as we did until >> recently. And not fetching ARKs if it's out of date is insane, which >> I've >> fixed in r16861. Please make it unconditionally recompute, and >> re-test to see >> if there is still a problem. > > Restored in r16862, any objection to new function/variable names to > suite the newer purpose? > > updateShouldDisconnectNow -> updateVersionRoutablity > verifiedIncompatibleOlderVersion -> unroutableOlderVersion > verifiedIncompatibleNewerVersion -> unroutableNewerVersion > isVerifiedIncompatibleOlderVersion -> isUnroutableOlderVersion > isVerifiedIncompatibleNewerVersion -> isUnroutableNewerVersion > > And remove/change old comments: e.g. "on a relevant incoming > handshake" (ln#85), "breaking the meaning of > verifiedIncompable[Older|Newer]Version" (ln#2794)?
