Failfast / don't fail starting

[Paul Hethmon]

On 12/2/13 1:09 PM, "Tom Zeller" <tzeller at dragonacea.biz> wrote:

>>>What is our current design aim for fail fast?
>>
>>My opinion on this is pretty well known: I don't believe in it. I think
>>you produce as functional a state as possible and log the rest.
>>
>>I am ok with having flags for that, but as far as defaulting, I think
>>most
>>people end up confused by fail fast, and I think a case can be made for
>>flipping the default in 3.0 if others share my view.
>
>I'm okay with defaulting to non-fail-fast.

As a deployer, I like the fail fast. If I give Shib some garbage, it stops
and I know it right then instead of later when I'm asleep and the customer
calls me to complain.

For automatic re-loads of configuration, my view is that if the new
configuration does not load, then it should revert to the last good
configuration.

cheers,

Paul