I think it's a great idea! abort_page has always kinda' been crap.
It never really did what I wanted it to do, which is what you're
describing here. It was always a pain to have to work around it. In
my earlier days, I would actually call 'exit' to get the behavior I
wanted not knowing that it was actually causing the interp to exit.
0-]
I appreciate the solution and the effort.
Damon
> Greeetings...
>
> I think abort_page is pretty broken. It aborts the connection, which
> can confuse browsers that are doing a keep-alive. Worse, it doesn't
> really abort the page, it just causes the same result as a return,
> meaning that if abort_page is called from a proc, for example, that
> proc returns, but the proc that called it continues executing.
>
> It needs to work more like "exit", but without destroying the
> interpreter or exiting the Apache process, of course.
>
> I propose that we change abort_page to work like this:
>
> When abort_page is called, it generates an error with an errorCode of
> something like {RIVET ABORTPAGE "Page aborted by abort_page directive"}
>
> The top-level C code that calls Tcl_EvalObj to execute the .rvt page
> (or parsed page, etc) currently, if TCL_ERROR is received, executes
> an error handler if it's defined and, if not, or if the handler gets
> an error, does some error output on its own. I propose that this
> code be modified to recognize the RIVET ABORTPAGE errorCode and, when
> it's that, not do any error processing, neither calling the error
> handler nor outputting anything on its own.
>
> One slight change this would introduce in the behavior is that if a
> catch wrapped the code that executed abort_page, that catch would
> catch it -- but this is also a feature, because it gives a project
> the ability to catch abort_page and do any special cleanup or
> handling they want to do. It could break some code, though, that
> does a catch and is indiscriminate in looking at what it got.
>
> However the way abort_page works right now is quite broken, as much
> more Tcl code can continue to be executed, it just doesn't get
> output, and it generates an empty page sometimes, when it shouldn't.
>
> This is a very simple change -- only a handful of lines of code in
> two places. I'm willing to do it, if nobody thinks this is a
> horrible idea or comes up with something better.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karl
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
