[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#5328) backends sending/setting results
>> Back-relay operations can be factored out to something like this:
>> return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_cancel, Fail_send );
> ^^^ cancel should __NOT__ send response, since it's an extended
> operation. (...)
>> return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_extended, Fail_unwilling );
>> return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_chk_referrals, Fail_0 );
>> return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_operational, Fail_1 );
> I like the idea, but that's slightly too simple. The reason I didn't
> try to synthesize calls like that was the need to also handle more
> complex combinations. For this reason, I'm actually considering the use
> of a mask to fine-grain drive the behavior of the helper.
And your commit looks nice.
Actually what I intended to say was "the _current_ back-relay code
can be factored out to...". I didn't know which of it was correct.