Re: Reliability of RPC services

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 12:25 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 10:24:24PM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > But the test of interest here is not "is it waiting for a reply". That
> > is harmless. The test of interest here is "is it prevented from getting
> > useful work done".
> 
> No, the test which was meant here (for single-copy reply capabilities) was: Is
> there ever going to be a reply at all? 

I believe that the thread became broken. The reason we were interested
in the problem of non-reply is that we were trying to resolve the
problem of indefinite blocking. The objective was to solve indefinite
blocking. Solving non-reply was one approach to a solution.


shap