I second that.
--- Scott Wiersdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:10:51AM -0400, Rocco Caputo > wrote: > > Does anyone prefer that signal handlers keep sessions > alive? This is > > your opportunity to explain why. > > I'm a weak POE user, and don't have a good grasp of the > internals, but > I could conceive of some scenarios where you would want > this kind of > behavior. See below. > > > I don't want sig()'s semantics flapping back and forth, > so a > > reversion will most likely be permanent. > > And I agree with Rocco; the default semantics should be > "fixed" > (whatever that means) and then left alone. May I second a > proposal I > heard last week (but have forgotten who proposed it)? > > The proposal was that a special flag to sig() (or a > separate method > entirely) be given which could alter the semantics so > that sessions > are kept alive as long as there are handlers "out there" > expecting > that session to catch the signal. > > Perhaps Rocco can revert the behavior as it used to be, > and then in > some future date he (or some other ambitious person) > could add in the > optional "keep-alive" semantics if it were popular enough > to warrant > it. > > Scott > -- > Scott Wiersdorf > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
