Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Notes from DON on reorganizing Setup Requests #7

Open
robertleeplummerjr opened this issue Jul 3, 2014 · 0 comments
Open

Notes from DON on reorganizing Setup Requests #7

robertleeplummerjr opened this issue Jul 3, 2014 · 0 comments

Comments

@robertleeplummerjr
Copy link
Member

robertleeplummerjr commented Jul 3, 2014

So this means that YOU should re-think the sending requirements, which Start with #37. Here
the list of inter-server communications:
#1 = Action 39 ----I have to change this to "Send FL-P Setup Request"
#2. Should #42 be sent with #39 or should it wait for 41?
#3 Now 45 MUST wait for 43 AS PRESENTLY CONFIGURED unless Action 39 includes a header field that gives the NewrSen-WbSi the Search URL

for the Newr-Sen. So theoretically, we could have ALL the transfers in the First GET!! Tell me if that simplifies things.
If so, then I've got to change the Figure and the Legend.
QUESTION: If we WAIT for responses, then under some rare conditions, the response will be an ERROR, rather than
Data. If we don't wait, then the Error msg comes while a WebSite is doing something that does NOT take
the error into account.

My present proposal = Wait for responses and process either error or OK signal, THEN initiate the POST.

--- Want to back this issue? **[Post a bounty on it!](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/2957448-notes-from-don-on-reorganizing-setup-requests?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1756073&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github)** We accept bounties via [Bountysource](https://www.bountysource.com/?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1756073&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant