Thanks Guys for your comments on the approach. I agree completely with
y'all - its a dirty approach and has many shortcomings.
Should I file a feature request for permanent/robust solution?

On Dec 2, 2:41 pm, "Thilo-Alexander Ginkel" <th...@ginkel.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 December 2009 22:08:26 Chris Clark wrote:
>
> > Modifying the registry and then restoring is not a great idea. I can see
> > why you are doing it but I'd encourage you to NOT do this. There is a
> > potential here for a background web app to fail (e.g. web browser based
> > IM tool).
>
> Not only that, but there is an ugly race condition hidden in that pattern:
> Start post-review twice in parallel and you might end up with no configured
> proxy if you have the following execution order:
>
> Instance 1                    Instance 2
> ----------                    ----------
> p := read setting
> disable proxy
>                               p2 := read setting
>                               disable proxy
> set proxy <- p
>                               set proxy <- p2
>
> I fixed the issue for my installation using the approach suggested by Chris in
> <1eb5631b0911241645m59efcbe0i6c5de6c600313...@mail.gmail.com>, which works
> like a charm.
>
> Regards,
> Thilo

-- 
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at 
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en

Reply via email to