Re: /var/tmp in FailureDetector

2010-10-21 Thread Aaron Morton
To quick for me :) Aaron On 21 Oct 2010, at 17:52, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Done in r1025822 > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote: >> You're right! It looks like dead code that should be removed. >> >> Gary. >> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:50, aaron morton wrote: >>>

Re: /var/tmp in FailureDetector

2010-10-20 Thread Jonathan Ellis
Done in r1025822 On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote: > You're right!  It looks like dead code that should be removed. > > Gary. > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:50, aaron morton wrote: >> I should have mentioned the FailureDetectorMBean only has the parameterless >> dumpInterAr

Re: /var/tmp in FailureDetector

2010-10-20 Thread Gary Dusbabek
You're right! It looks like dead code that should be removed. Gary. On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:50, aaron morton wrote: > I should have mentioned the FailureDetectorMBean only has the parameterless > dumpInterArrivalTimes(). > > The overload that takes InetAddress is not available through JMX.

Re: /var/tmp in FailureDetector

2010-10-20 Thread aaron morton
I should have mentioned the FailureDetectorMBean only has the parameterless dumpInterArrivalTimes(). The overload that takes InetAddress is not available through JMX. A On 21 Oct 2010, at 01:55, Gary Dusbabek wrote: > Yes, we should generate it in the right temp directory. That method > is a

Re: /var/tmp in FailureDetector

2010-10-20 Thread Gary Dusbabek
Yes, we should generate it in the right temp directory. That method is an implementation of an interface method (FailureDetectorMBean), meant to be invoked by JMX, which is why no other code calls it. Gary. On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:48, aaron morton wrote: > I was reading through some code and