[E-Lang] remote comms: Timeouts and Connection Failure

[Karp, Alan]

Zooko wrote:
> 
> #1. I want to predict non-response as soon as possible, even 
> at the cost of false alarms.
> 

I'd like to modify this to read

    #1. I want to predict non-response in a timely manner, even at the cost
of 
        false alarms.

The phrase "as soon as possible" carries a connotation of frequency that the
requirement may not warrant.

>
>     A. I trust the counterparty never to do this to me.
>      or
>     B. There is an additional, local, impatience policy at work which will
>      handle this case.
>

Perhaps other cases are called for.  You proabably include these implicitly
in B, but I think it's worth calling them out.  

	C. I can prevent the reply from reaching me.
	D. I can prevent the message from doing harm should it reach me.

In my case, I used keepalives because I can't figure out how to change the
stupid 20 minute timeout in TCP.  (If I waited 20 minutes, I'd get a BURP, a
null message on the socket.)  When I got no response, I'd close the socket
from my end, thereby implementing C. 


_________________________
Alan Karp
Principal Scientist
Decision Technology Department
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories MS 1U-2
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
(650) 857-3967, fax (650) 857-6278
https://ecardfile.com/id/Alan_Karp
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Alan_Karp/