On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:43:11 -0600, Karl Lehenbauer wrote
> This looks pretty good.  We'll give it a try.  I was thinking that 
> ForceAfterScript might be called AfterEveryScript.  I just like the 
> sound of it, but no biggie.

I also proposed RequestCatchScript, pointing out the fact this is also the
last chance for settling everything that was left floating in the air, but the
plain descriptive AfterEveryScript is just OK.

> 
> I was also thinking possibly instead of having an AbortScript just 
> have a flag that can be queried to see if the page got here by 
> abort_page or what, but this solves the problem and there's already 
> code written.
> 
> I hadn't thought about the abort-within-an-abort scenario.  I think 
> that's pretty smart.
> 

I thought for a while about the possibility of doing recursive handling of the
abort_page generated error, but I thought in most cases the abort code passed
to abort_page could help to cope with what required an interruption and there
wasn't a compelling need for nested interruptions. Maybe I had it wrong, we'll
see in the practical usage. Furthermore, coding it the way it is required
little changes.

-- Massimo



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscr...@tcl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-h...@tcl.apache.org

Reply via email to