I refactored the error handler to add a separate exception that could be used for retryable IO errors on the underlying transport.
Does anyone want to see another webrev before I putback? -j On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 04:55:48PM -0700, Danek Duvall wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
