On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:37 AM, William Reade <[email protected] > wrote:
> It's important to realise that the *guarantees* made by the system do not > in fact become any stronger under the proposed model. If a unit of > client_service is (say) running a slow config-changed hook when (2a) comes > to pass, server_service/0 will *not* wait for that unit to handle depart > before cutting off access. It *would* in fact be possible to do this; but > the tradeoff in play there is whether we want an unresponsive or missing > unit of client_service to be capable of blocking the shutdown of > server_service/0. I'm +1 in theory, but nervous in practice; without > implementing `destroy-unit --force`, which is not entirely trivial (largely > but not entirely because it's blocked on "" [0]), that change could lead to > deadlocked environments. If you'd like the system to make this guarantee as > well, please let me know: I can't promise anything about scheduling > decisions there, but it will be useful input into those decisions ;). > Sorry, missed the footnote: [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1125018 (uniter uses local dir state to determine relation membership<https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1125018> )
-- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
