Re: The checksum statement ++

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:

> And what about the first proposal, send today 12:43 (generalization
> of timeout statement and timeout event hard error classification +
> its broadcasting through dependency tree)?

It's not bad but I feel it's a bit of a workaround to connect it to
timeout. But as you mentioned having an event (especially checksum)
propagate upwards in the dependency tree is important. Maybe using a
new STOP_MONITORING event or something is better (cleaner)? I don't
know.

I need to investigate your proposal and the control.c code more to see
it better. But right now, I think we could doucment us out of the
problem and maybe refactor the code in a later 4.1 version. What do
you think?

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland