Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 05:02:45PM -0400, Denton Liu wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:04:58PM -0400, Denton Liu wrote:
>> > This is not a complete solution to the problem, however. It is possible
>> > that a flush packet could be sent in the middle of a message and the
>> > connection could die immediately after. Then, remote-curl would not
>> > error out and fetch-pack would still be in the middle of a transaction
>> > and they would enter deadlock. A complete solution would involve
>> > reframing the stateless-connect protocol, possibly by introducing
>> > another control packet ("0002"?) as a stateless request separator
>> > packet which is always sent at the end of post_rpc().
>> > ...
> I do kind of like the idea of a stateless separator packet, if I
> understand your meaning correctly. I'll wait to see what the patches
> look like. :)
I vaguely recall talking with somebody (perhaps it was Shawn Pearce)
about my long-time complaint on the on-the-wire protocol, in that
the protocol sometimes uses flush to merely mean "I've finished
speaking one section of my speech" and sometimes "I've done talking
for now and it's your turn to speak to me" (the receiving end needs
to know which one a particular flush means without knowing the
context in which it is issued---which makes it impossible to write a
protocol agnostic proxy.
If the above proposal means that we'll have an explicit way to say
"Not just I am done with one section of my speech, but it is your
turn to speak and I am going to listen", that would be wonderful.
