On 10/19/2009 08:04 AM, Bruce Simpson wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> If you can preserve existing code style, then it's more likely changes
> can be taken as-is (i.e. don't use camelCase if possible, opening brace
> of {} block on separate line for methods, etc). I'd probably call the
> flag 'start_is_pending'.
>
> What I'm likely to do, when I return (I'm catching up on email now,
> although I'm still on my break, and might have some social stuff going
> on when I return to London) is to flag patches for possible future
> inclusion. I really need to finish what I've started with XRL; it's
> probably easier to deal with stuff like this as a sweep during a 1.7-RC.I can change the coding style, but this particular patch is useless without a bunch of other fixes relating to transient interfaces, since those hit before this one would be noticeable. Probably best to wait until the next dev cycle when we can work towards integrating more of my changes. With regard to XRL, I've a question: If an application makes 3 XRL calls: do_a() do_b() commit_all() Is there any guarantee that these are strictly delivered to the peer process in the order called? Code appears to expect this to be true, but I'm suspicious that perhaps it does not. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
