Re: [boost] [transact] transaction language macros (was: Re: [transact] code in sandbox)

Subject: Re: [boost] [transact] transaction language macros (was: Re: [transact] code in sandbox)
From: strasser_at_[hidden]
Date: 2010-02-21 17:21:47

the changes we've discussed:

https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/59827

Zitat von "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>:

> Yes, we can. But the result of the break is that we don't retry,  
> i.e. we abort the transaction. If you prefer you can throw an  
> isolation_exception when the user uses break or continue instead of  
> asserting it don't use it.

I'm pretty sure you're trying to stop the user from shooting himself  
in the foot here.
instead of "break", the user could also "return" from a retry clause.  
or throw an exception and absorbing it outside of the transactino  
scope, with similar results.
I think "break" should break, not assert and not throw, just because  
we think this is what the user should have done.

>> try{
>>   //...
>> }catch(my_exc &){
>>   transaction{
>>     //...
>>   }retry{
>>     throw;
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> is it expected behaviour that this rethrows isolation_exception, not my_exc?
>
> yes, IMO the exception must be isolation_exception, or a specific  
> exception the library documents and make the outer transaction to  
> abort.

OK. moved the user's retry code back into the catch-clause.

best,

Stefan