Yep, I'll do that this morning. Thanks! On 8/5/13 8:40 AM, "Julien Danjou" <jul...@danjou.info> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 05 2013, Thomas Maddox wrote: > >> Thinking about it, the latter option seems to describe a very real >>concern >> going forward that didn't occur to me when I was wandering around the >> code. Specifically regarding option 2a, if message 2 arrives at CM >>before >> message 1 because it ended up on a faster route, then message 1 will >> overwrite the metadata from message 2 and we record an incorrect state. >> Isn't the nature of network comms for messages at the application layer >>to >> potentially be out of order and in the case of UDP, even lost? What is >>the >> leftover purpose of resource-show when we can't trust its output to >> represent the actual state of whatever resource is in question? It seems >> that timestamps could be used to prevent overwriting of the latest state >> by checking that the incoming notification doesn't have a timestamp less >> than the already recorded one. I hope I'm not seeing a problem that >> doesn't exist here or misunderstanding something. If so, please correct >>me! > >No you're absolutely right. Checking the timestamp before we override >resource metadata would be a great idea. Would you mind reporting a bug >first, so we can schedule to fix it? > >-- >Julien Danjou >;; Free Software hacker ; freelance consultant >;; http://julien.danjou.info _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
