[Stackless] Re: Stackless API

Esteban U. Caamano Castro euccastro at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 3 00:37:03 CET 2004


Bob Ippolito wrote

> I think that exceptions on channels are more useful
> than just closure 
> notification, but I think the implementation should
> be changed to make 
> these exceptions travel out-of-band from the data.
> 
> -bob

I suppose by 'out-of-band' you are making the point
that only send_exception(), and not send(), should
raise at the other end. If it's that, then it's fine;
everyone seems to agree.

Now, *implementation wise* I think it's advisable that
exceptions which are meant to explode actually travel
along with the data. This sounds like the simplest way
to make sure that they will get appropiately queued. 

My assumption is that if the channel has 3, 2, 1
waiting to be sent, and you send_exception(*boom*),
you should get 3, 2, 1, *boom* at the other end. This
is current behaviour.

send_exception() communicates this detail better than
raise_exception(), so I withdraw my former suggestion.

Tirosh' proposal does this all nicely, I think.

Esteban.

______________________________________________________________________

Yahoo! GeoCities: 15MB de espaço grátis para criar seu web site!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless



More information about the Stackless mailing list