I'm not sure what you mean. Today it is legal and appropriate to use the
compensate activity from inside of a fault handler. I've reviewed this
mail twice and I'm still not clear as to your concern.
Could you please give a short example of something that you think is
illegal in the spec today that this issue would now make legal that is
causing you concern?
Thanks,
Yaron
Furniss, Peter wrote:
> Looking at the substance of this proposed issue, it seems to be proposing a
> rather different model from the existing one. Surely the existing model is
> that, until a scope exits, anything that it has done but that will need
> unwinding in the event of fault has to be coped with by the fault handler; after
> the scope has exited, it is the responsibility of that scope's compensation handler.
>
> There will be cases where some more sophisticated pattern might seem more
> convenient - if scope B does operation b1, then b2, then b3, all directly in B,
> then the fault handler may need to know if b2 has been done to work out if it
> must undo it. The solution of course is to put the operations each in its own
> scope, in which case B can leave it to the default fault handler to undo things
> backwards, but only of the things that have finished.
>
> The issue does raise some questions of what happens if a compensation handler
> itself contains a scope.
>
>
> Peter
>
> -----------------------------------
> Chief Scientist
> Choreology Ltd
> 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ, UK
> web: www.choreology.com
> mobile: +44 7951 536168
>
