Message114963
Senthil, can you tell us why this fix is correct - and convince us that it is the Final Fix for this issue? Not because I don't trust you, but because this issue has a bad track record.
Some comments/questions to this patch:
Why do 401 require such special handling? Why not handle it like the other errors?
How do this work together with http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=3985 ?
Detail: I'm surprised you don't use reset_retry_count() - that makes it a bit harder to grok the code. And the patch doesn't reduce the complexity of the code.
But ... I really don't understand ... .retried is a kind of error counter. Why do we reset it on errors? I would expect it to be reset on success ... or perhaps on anything but 401, 403 and 407. Or perhaps it should be reset whenever a new URL is requested. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-08-26 09:54:35 | kiilerix | set | recipients:
+ kiilerix, orsenthil, jonozzz, r.david.murray, Dmitry.Jemerov, chuchiperriman, Jurjen, zenyatta |
2010-08-26 09:54:35 | kiilerix | set | messageid: <1282816475.55.0.0403013824496.issue8797@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-08-26 09:54:33 | kiilerix | link | issue8797 messages |
2010-08-26 09:54:32 | kiilerix | create | |
|