Subject: Re: [boost] [transact] code in sandbox
From: Vicente Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-17 12:50:36
> Zitat von Vicente Botet Escriba <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>:
>>>> because of how std::uncaught_exception() works that would
>>>> fail if the
>>>> macros are used inside a destructor that is called during exception
>>> 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?
> I probably wouldn't encourage modifying persistent objects in
> destructors, but Boost.STM is intended as an alternative to manual
> thread synchronization.
> so if you've ever locked a mutex in a destructor, you know a use case
> for this.
>> As we cannot throw an isolation_exception, we need to force the
>> to abort. Does this use case responds to the need for
> I don't know, as I still don't understand rollback_only. I think Bob's
> question was about that too. not about the difference between
> force_to_abort/rollback_only, but the difference between rolling back
> and marking for rollback.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
abort/rollback will abort the current transaction on the point of call,
force_to_abort/set_rollback_only don' make the transaction to abort/rollback
immediately, but tell to the the transaction that it must be
aborted/rolledback next time we try to commit it.
-- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-transact--code-in-sandbox-tp27515535p27627621.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk