Message175997
> IFF we are going to walk the hard and rocky road of exception handling,
> then we are going to need at least four hooks and a register function that
> takres four callables as arguments: register(prepare, error, parent,
> child). Each prepare() call pushes an error handling onto a stack. In case
> of an exception in a prepare handler, the error stack is popped until all
> error handlers are called. This approach allows a prepare handler to
> actually prevent a fork() call from succeeding.
I think there are two main options if a prepare callback fails:
1) The fork should not occur and the exception should be raised
2) The fork should occur and the exception should be only be printed
I favour option 1 since, if they want, users can always wrap their prepare callbacks with
try:
...
except:
sys.excepthook(*sys.exc_info())
With option 1 I don't see why error callbacks are necessary. Just unwind the stack of imaginary try...finally... clauses and let any exceptions propagate out using exception chaining if necessary. This is what pure-python-atfork.patch does. Note, however, that if the fork succeeds then any subsequent exception is only printed. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-11-20 15:44:34 | sbt | set | recipients:
+ sbt, twouters, gregory.p.smith, amaury.forgeotdarc, christian.heimes, asvetlov |
2012-11-20 15:44:34 | sbt | set | messageid: <1353426274.57.0.0122851784982.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-11-20 15:44:34 | sbt | link | issue16500 messages |
2012-11-20 15:44:34 | sbt | create | |
|