On 2012/06/07 12:07:29, rog wrote:
> On 2012/06/04 07:29:19, fwereade wrote:
> > Not relevant to this CL... but do we actually want to do this? The
unit agent
> > will surely still be running; I'm not sure it'll handle this all
that well...
> that's an interesting point (although, as you say, not relevant to
this CL).
> what *should* we do here? wait until the unit agent has gone away?
leave the
> directory around and GC it later? or perhaps the best approach *is* to
delete
> the directory and let the unit agent detect that.
Offhand, I think I'd favour a dying/dead approach... eg this sets
"dying", which is handled by the UA (which cleans itself up, and sets
"dead"); MA can watch for "dead" on assigned units, tidy them up, and
finally delete the state once we're sure it's unused. Not sure though.
On 2012/06/07 12:07:29, rog wrote:
> On 2012/06/04 07:29:19, fwereade wrote:
> > Not relevant to this CL... but do we actually want to do this? The
unit agent
> > will surely still be running; I'm not sure it'll handle this all
that well...
> that's an interesting point (although, as you say, not relevant to
this CL).
> what *should* we do here? wait until the unit agent has gone away?
leave the
> directory around and GC it later? or perhaps the best approach *is* to
delete
> the directory and let the unit agent detect that.
Offhand, I think I'd favour a dying/dead approach... eg this sets
"dying", which is handled by the UA (which cleans itself up, and sets
"dead"); MA can watch for "dead" on assigned units, tidy them up, and
finally delete the state once we're sure it's unused. Not sure though.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/