On 12 March 2012 12:23, Zabrane Mickael <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zabrane3@gmail.com">zabrane3@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="im"><div>On Mar 12, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Matthew Sackman wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>For those of us struggling to follow this, if you're currently in the<br>
act of receiving data from node X, why can't you assume node X is still<br>alive? I.e. what is wrong with treating arbitrary data from node X as<br>evidence it's still alive, in lieu of a heartbeat from node X?<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div><a href="http://learnyousomeerlang.com/distribunomicon" target="_blank">http://learnyousomeerlang.com/distribunomicon</a></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Yes, that repeats the information that Irmo started this subthread with. It doesn't address Matthew's question at all, though.<br>
<br>Perhaps the erlang list is a better place for us to be asking about this, Matthew, since it's not directly about Rabbit - are you on that list? I'm not currently subscribed.<br><br>Tony<br></div></div>-- <br>Tony Garnock-Jones<br>
<a href="mailto:tonygarnockjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">tonygarnockjones@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/" target="_blank">http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/</a><br>