search

blambo / wave-protocol

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/wave-protocol
0 stars 0 forks source link

Re-opening a previously opened wave only lets one operation through before channel dies #128

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Open a wave
2. Open/create another wave
3. Re-open the wave from step 1, and edit.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

Expected behaviour is editing works.
Observed behaviour is that one operation succeeds, and subsequent operations do 
not, because the channel gets closed after that first operation.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by hearn...@google.com on 29 Oct 2010 at 3:03

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I suspect this may be because there is no control flow for closing a wave 
session / mux, so it may be that two muxs are competing over the same channel, 
and somehow conflicting?

Original comment by hearn...@google.com on 29 Oct 2010 at 3:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Problem found.

Since there is no mechanism in the old protocol for a client to close a wave 
session, then after opening a wave for the second time, the server sends 
duplicate updates.  One is an ack, one is an incoming delta.  Since the 
client-side socket layer demultiplexes these messages based on wavelet name, 
then both messages go to the new mux, and the channel dies.

Client-side solution seems possible: the updates are distinguishable by channel 
id.  Updates that come in for closed channels can just be ignored by the client.

Original comment by hearn...@google.com on 29 Oct 2010 at 4:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Tried to notify David after I saw his related post here 
http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol-code-discuss/msg/7a68d3c6b378ddf5 
that the described bug is most likely already reported here 
http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/issues/detail?id=100. Just in case 
nobody noticed.

Original comment by horst.an...@gmail.com on 29 Oct 2010 at 9:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Issue 100 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by hearn...@google.com on 29 Oct 2010 at 10:19

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Update: this issue has been patched over for now, with some client-side 
filtering.

Once the new protocol is rolled out, the ability for the client to close wave 
streams should fix this issue properly.  Leaving this issue open until then.

Original comment by hearn...@google.com on 7 Nov 2010 at 12:52