From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <62bde7ee0bc7ccdee84657319b0d5eb3@terzarima.net> From: Charles Forsyth Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:01:16 +0100 To: 9fans@9fans.net In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] A little more ado about async Tclunk Topicbox-Message-UUID: 71d7d502-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >Do you do completely asynch clunks or just the wait for the response?. it uses `completely' async clunks, which is why it can be broken. having the original process send the Tclunk and not wait for the Rclunk is different. i think it was mentioned last time this matter came up, and that's probably why i didn't pursue this discussion further then, since that change is less of a problem. (at least, if you don't mind close not returning an error from the clunk, but since the current implementations suppress errors from clunk, it's a trickier position to sustain.)