From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3e11ef4efc073f6b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: requeue with abort and timed call
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <2a0a1de3-6736-4478-9378-50b8895fa20d@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <2a60b044-6a5c-4ce6-93e6-6eeefc8806c3@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
	<1f6rcb1qwt7vx.1mckzyk9ucohf.dlg@40tude.net>
 <84c56781-1cb1-4d86-be14-e66fc9fdade6@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
	<7p8onuvzdz18$.1m1dq8n3b52q5.dlg@40tude.net> <9j9ajg.3a7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.49.19.209
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1230584758 23212 127.0.0.1 (29 Dec 2008 21:05:58
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:05:58 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=62.49.19.209;
	posting-account=_RXWmAoAAADQS3ojtLFDmTNJCT0N2R4U
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_6; en-us)
	AppleWebKit/525.27.1 (KHTML,
 like Gecko) Version/3.2.1 Safari/525.27.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4083
Date: 2008-12-29T13:05:58-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Dec 29, 10:42=A0am, Jean-Pierre Rosen <ro...@adalog.fr> wrote:

> Anyway, it is clear that the second call should be cancelled in this
> example.

The whole example is far from clear to me. If I were reviewing this
design I would have great difficulty understanding what the designer
was trying to do and whether the code achieved it.

The decision to requeue ought to be speedy. Requeue because you can't
deal with it now; don't ponder for 3 seconds and then decide to
requeue for a further arbitrary period.

If the code said

         accept Original_Call do
            Put_Line ("Original Call...");
            delay 3.0;
            Put_Line ("Original Call Done");
         end Original_Call;

ie without the requeue, the timed entry call would not be cancelled,
because we're abort-deferred. So a caller design which relies on the
callee having/not having a requeue is broken.

Isn't it normally considered bad practice to do extensive processing
within the accept statement?