idempotent

Conceptually, it also creates holes in the idempotent service model, since they have to be aware of port conflicts.

Clouds of idempotent expressions of execution don't need clocks at all, if you have them all, you have your answer.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say there's no guarantee that it's always idempotent.

You'll probably structure your consumers as idempotent queue processors so you can get replayability.

If the resource already exists -- if it has an identifier -- you'd use (an unsafe, but idempotent) PUT to replace it.

But since rollouts may not be idempotent and this process isn't transactional, you have to be very careful indeed to code this out.

Everything has to be idempotent, which is easy enough for transactional database stuff, less easy for things like asynchronous queues that fire off emails.

That is why we use unit tests where applicable (where functions are at least idempotent).

You can (and I do) view the React render as an idempotent projection from state to DOM, otherwise known as a template.

And worse for some applications it may not be idempotent and a client's proxy is going to silently retry a PUT that isn't safe to do so.

The advantage of ansible is that it is idempotent and the changes it makes to the system are the same ones you make manually or via bash scripts.

Sadly, PDF isn't idempotent, rendering automated conversion difficult.

It's idempotent, so whenever I need to make a config change, I just change that file and run "provision", and everything is the same across machines.