On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 06:25:51AM +0000, Ofer Ben-Yacov wrote: > I understand that you met Ayal for a short talk during ONS. > From what he told me I think there might be some misunderstanding so I > would like to make it clear what the intent here is. > First, in case I did not explain it clearly before, I do *not* mean that > the right sequence is "connect -> disconnect -> connect". > I completely agree with you that we should connect only once and the code > does exactly that. > In my opinion, the only point that we need to agree upon is how to get the > schema. > What the patch does right now is open the connection once, retrieve the > schema and continue to work using the same connection. > > I think the point of disagreement here is about whether we should maintain > a local copy of the schema or not. > Since we want to retrieve the *entire* schema, we do not need to keep a > copy of it locally. To validate that the schema hasn't changed, we just > need to verify that the schema version hasn't changed. > > Does this make sense?
Can you please separate the actual support for passive TCP from the rest of this? You've conflated two issues. Submit a patch that supports passive TCP, then one that adds the rest of what you want. Then we can have a sensible discussion. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
