On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:42:30PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 04/29/2013 08:12 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 20:05 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>> On 04/29/2013 07:52 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 11:54 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>>> Ah, yes. If the request returns ERR_STOP_PERIODIC_TASK, the task
>>>>> completely destroyed, otherwise it will reschedule: when EOK, it
>>>>> fire the request in last-execution-time + period, otherwise now +
>>>> Wouldn't it be simpler to simply stop on any error, and reschedule
>>>> when EOK is returned ?
>>>> This way the task can bubble up the error all the wya w/o having to mask
>>>> it to a ERR_STOP_PERIODIC_TASK error at the very end.
>>> No, you want to terminate the periodic task only on fatal error which
>>> you can't recover from. E.g. you want to reschedule the task when you
>>> can't connect to LDAP, but terminate it if LDAP server doesn't
>>> some extension.
>>> If you return ERR_STOP_PERIODIC_TASK, the task will not be rescheduled.
>>> It will be rescheduled on any other error code and logged as appropriate.
>> I guess the point here is what you want to do by default.
> AFAIK none of current periodic tasks ends willingly, only if tevent
> timer cannot be created. So I think it is OK to anticipate that
> number of error codes on which you want to continue is far greater
> than those on which you want to stop.
> But then again, we can change it any time, if it won't fit our future needs.
>> In either case you need to check and remap error codes before returning.
>> If you define ERR_STOP_PERIODIC_TASK, then you want a continue by
>> default, let's stop only on white listed errors.
>> If there is a new 'fatal' error you do not catch in whatever function
>> normally converts to ERR_STOP_PERIODIC_TASK. Then the task will be
>> The other point is that with ERR_STOP_PERIODIC_TASK, you also have to
>> log where you map because it won't bubble up.
>> I can see the advantages as well though, so I do not have a strong
>> preference at this point, carry on :)
> I have just amended the design page:
Fine, let's go ahead with the current design. In 1.10 the only task
using this framework would be the background refresh anyway, right? Then
when we convert the other tasks (note: file tickets to convert the other
tasks) we'll make sure that the behaviour in faulty cases stays the same
so that we don't regress.
sssd-devel mailing list
Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
Red Hat Inc.
Looking to carve out IT costs?