On 04/29/2013 02:55 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> 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
>>>>> when EOK is returned ?
>>>>> This way the task can bubble up the error all the wya w/o having to
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
This is the one that will fix a known netgroup issue, right?