Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:45:28 -0400, John Tobey wrote: > > >But the above code would be possible if get_submission stored the > >current continuation in a database before returning to the web server > >loop. The page handler could associate the next request with the > >continuation and simply jump back into it when the form was submitted. > > Ooh, not only must you have continuations, but you have to be able to > store it in a database as well? That implies that not only you must be > able to stringify the state (stack+variables), but to restore it from a > string as well. Something along the lines of the mechanism behind > AUTOLOAD? That's definitely in my 'cute but scary' list... -- Piers
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchronous I/O John Tobey
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchronous I/O Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchronous I/O John Tobey
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchronous I/O Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchronous ... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchronous I/O Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchronous ... John Tobey
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchro... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asyn... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asyn... John Tobey
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal ... John Tobey
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal ... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchronous ... Buddha Buck
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchro... John Tobey
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchro... Ken Fox
- Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchro... Bart Lateur
