Karl Lehenbauer wrote:
> I think abort_page is pretty broken. It aborts the connection, which
> can confuse browsers that are doing a keep-alive. Worse, it doesn't
> really abort the page, it just causes the same result as a return,
> meaning that if abort_page is called from a proc, for example, that
> proc returns, but the proc that called it continues executing.
>
> It needs to work more like "exit", but without destroying the
> interpreter or exiting the Apache process, of course.
Yes, it's something that Tcl is lacking that would be really handy.
abort_page was one stab at it, but to truly do it right, you would
probably have to fiddle tcl's internals.
> I propose that we change abort_page to work like this:
>
> When abort_page is called, it generates an error with an errorCode of
> something like {RIVET ABORTPAGE "Page aborted by abort_page directive"}
>
> The top-level C code that calls Tcl_EvalObj to execute the .rvt page
> (or parsed page, etc) currently, if TCL_ERROR is received, executes an
> error handler if it's defined and, if not, or if the handler gets an
> error, does some error output on its own. I propose that this code be
> modified to recognize the RIVET ABORTPAGE errorCode and, when it's
> that, not do any error processing, neither calling the error handler
> nor outputting anything on its own.
>
> One slight change this would introduce in the behavior is that if a
> catch wrapped the code that executed abort_page, that catch would catch
> it -- but this is also a feature, because it gives a project the
> ability to catch abort_page and do any special cleanup or handling they
> want to do. It could break some code, though, that does a catch and is
> indiscriminate in looking at what it got.
Hrm... yeah, I suppose it's a feature, but it really doesn't mirror the
functionality of exit.
> However the way abort_page works right now is quite broken, as much
> more Tcl code can continue to be executed, it just doesn't get output,
> and it generates an empty page sometimes, when it shouldn't.
>
> This is a very simple change -- only a handful of lines of code in two
> places. I'm willing to do it, if nobody thinks this is a horrible idea
> or comes up with something better.
I don't use abort_page much, so I'm basically +1, as I agree it's better
than what's there.
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Apache, Linux, Tcl Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
