On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:10:51AM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote: > Does anyone prefer that signal handlers keep sessions alive? This is > your opportunity to explain why.
I'm a weak POE user, and don't have a good grasp of the internals, but I could conceive of some scenarios where you would want this kind of behavior. See below. > I don't want sig()'s semantics flapping back and forth, so a > reversion will most likely be permanent. And I agree with Rocco; the default semantics should be "fixed" (whatever that means) and then left alone. May I second a proposal I heard last week (but have forgotten who proposed it)? The proposal was that a special flag to sig() (or a separate method entirely) be given which could alter the semantics so that sessions are kept alive as long as there are handlers "out there" expecting that session to catch the signal. Perhaps Rocco can revert the behavior as it used to be, and then in some future date he (or some other ambitious person) could add in the optional "keep-alive" semantics if it were popular enough to warrant it. Scott -- Scott Wiersdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
