On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 04:07:13PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Let me just reiterate that it doesn't make sense to do any of this > post-November, since we're switching transport methods. My guess is that > we'll probably have to discard most the current transport implementation.
If we're going to get rid of the code anyway, then why are we cleaning it up to make maintenance easier? I don't really care much one way or the other. If you think the change will make your life easier in the future if and only if it gets in before the November release, then the code looks sufficiently correct to me that I have no objections. It's just not the way I'd go about it. > If you haven't looked at the current TransportException schema, I'd > encourage you to do so. Dan added a bunch of exceptions when he unified > the multiple error output. We know how to cope with anything that's a > subclass of TransportException. If the name annoys you, I can introduce > yet another type of TransportException. We can call it > RetryableTransportException, as you suggested. Are all TransportExceptions retryable, or are some fatal? If they're all retryable, then my suggestions are irrelevant for that reason alone. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
