Re: Bug#385976: strange (and annoying) delay on startup
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:23:15AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Thanks for the ellaboration. This sounds like a strange race, though. It
> > would require the user to launch the client before the server has finished its
> > startup, which AFAICT can only be done from a shell that doesn't belong to
> > this server session.
>
> I think the race is possible, otherwise there wouldn't be a special
> case for it in the code. But perhaps it's possible to avoid the race
> at a higher level.
>
> > Is this hack required for the initial X client? If this is so, waiting 5s is
> > not a good solution to workaround lack of syncronisation anyway.
>
> The 5 second wait is coded in a generic fashion when the underlying
> transport said connection is to be retried. The problem is not the 5
> second wait, but the fact that the transport said to retry, while it's
> clear that the socket isn't there -- and won't appear. It's hard to
> tell whether the socket might appear, but I think this question is for
> higher level stacks.
>
> My opinion is that whoever creates the environment variable which lists
> the socket should make sure the socket is available before spreading
> the news,
It did, and at that time the socket was present. It's just that the socket
is not there anymore.
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com. Note: this address is only intended for
spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
Reply to: