The only problem with that is the time to connect to another server is non-deterministic. So, the code one would have to write to enable this would involve a select and a bit of not fun code, but in general could be not very useful as an API.
I would say the lowest common denominator approach or the server based approach is better. Just two cents. Thanks, Mark > On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > I believe what Bruce was saying is that the behavior should be covered by > timeouts not iteration attempts. If the client is able to successfully send > the command to a server but a failure occurs waiting for a reply we would > not retry. If the client is unable to send the request to a sever because > the connection closes then we would try the next server, and the next, up > to the timeout value. > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:31 PM Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> I can also see why the user doing the retries themselves has value. As a >> lowest common denominator approach, pulling the API is sound. >> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >>> I think the setRetryAttempts really harks back to the case that Bruce was >>> alluding to in which the server goes down. Which is the one valid case >> for >>> this kind of API in theory. Are we say that in that case we don't retry? >>> Seems like we are making the API a little less nice for people. >>> As a developer using an API, I want to do as little as possible and get >>> the most robust solution possible. This seems to go the wrong direction >> of >>> that kind of intent in a way. I want the client to automatically try >> every >>> server. I don't ever want to configure the value. I could limit with this >>> API and force it to never retry or I could cause it to retry more times >>> than I care for it to. If we are going to get rid of this API in >>> particular, I would favor having it automatically try some number of >>> servers or all, but not retrying at all would not be my choice. >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would have to go looking, but the key concept is that this is a >> bigger >>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>>> interval such as the time between retries.... >>>>> wait as in how long to wait for a response... >>>>> >>>> >>>> All time intervals should be expressed in terms of std::chrono::duration >>>> values. A value of std::chrono::duration::zero means don't wait. I would >>>> suggest that a negative time not be allowed and that some very large, >>>> MAXINT, value could take the place of "forever". There is a ticket >> already >>>> open and in progress to replace all time based values with std::chrono. >>>> >>>> >>>>> retry as how many times to retry after a failure >>>>> attempts as in how many times to do a thing before giving up >>>>> Set of objects as in the setRetryAttempts code which , will try a >>>> number of >>>>> servers before giving up. where n is the number, -1 equals all, and 0 >>>> means >>>>> (1 server, no retries). >>>>> >>>> >>>> If there are other examples of "iteration" then we should consider them >>>> based on what they iterate. I think the consensus on setRetryAttempts is >>>> to >>>> abolish it. >>>> >>>> -Jake >>>> >>> >>> >>
