From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: an error in Re: tasking
Date: 1998/10/16
Date: 1998-10-16T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wccpvbtur98.fsf@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: slrn71osmk.ork.franke@pax01f.mipool.uni-jena.de
franke@minet.uni-jena.de (Frank Ecke) writes:
> Very well, but why is a rendezvous not an abort-deferring operation when the
> server is aborted? Or, to be more precise, why is the rendezvous treated
> differently in the case of aborting a task that executes an accept statement
> and in the case of aborting the triggering entry call in the ATC statement?
The triggering call in an ATC is usually something pretty short. If you
attempt to cancel it, and it's already started, it seems to make sense
to let it go. But aborting a whole server task seems different -- you
want to kill it, and notify callers.
Can you give a more concrete example of where you see the problem?
Note that entry bodies are abort-deferred, whereas accept statements are
not. Hmm.
- Bob
--
Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.
prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-10-16 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-10-07 0:00 tasking grave
1998-10-07 0:00 ` an error in tasking grave
1998-10-07 0:00 ` Frank Ecke
1998-10-08 0:00 ` Frank Ecke
1998-10-16 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1998-10-19 0:00 ` Frank Ecke
1998-10-16 0:00 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox