Re: [boost] [transact] code in sandbox

Subject: Re: [boost] [transact] code in sandbox
From: Vicente Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-17 10:47:54

Rob Stewart wrote:
> 
> strasser_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> Zitat von "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>:
>> >
>> > Couldn't you avoid the inner try block by detecting a pending
>> > exception in ~commit_on_destruction()?
>>
>> because of how std::uncaught_exception() works that would
>> fail if the
>> macros are used inside a destructor that is called during exception
>> unwinding:
>>
>> http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/047.htm
> 
> I'm familiar with that issue, but I never imagined that would be a
> reasonable use case.  Would you want to encourage using such code in a
> destructor by this design choice?
> 
> 

The question is not to encourage the use of such a code in a destructor. The
code on the destructor can call a function that contains an inner
transaction. Thus we have that this code can be executed on a destructor
indirectly.

Stephan, we shouldn't forget to add a test for this case.

As we cannot throw an isolation_exception, we need to force the transaction
to abort. Does this use case responds to the need for
force_to_abort/set_rollback_only?

Best,
Vicente
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-transact--code-in-sandbox-tp27515535p27625796.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.