Re: [Windows] Any way to distinguish ^C Induced EOF from ^Z EOF?
On 03/12/2012 10:39 PM, Jan Burse wrote:
Arne Vajh=F8j schrieb:
No but you ask users to enter it and complain
about its behavior.
No, I only gave an example. The example does also
go wrong on the Windows platform when you use (I
tested it):
cygwin
And for example issue a kill from another process.
Its deeply rooted in the behaviour of CON respectively
CONIN$. And it is even documented by MS.
What do you expect then? A signal handler is concurrent by design. If
the OS implementors chose to also automatically EOF the console the two
cannot know from each other without introducing synchronization overhead =
just for this single case. I doubt for any serious JVM implementor
would trade off in this direction.
Plus, since there is concurrency involved there is not much guarantees
cross platform anyway. I also agree to Arne's position that it is
unwise to commit on EOF and rollback otherwise: the more robust code is
always to commit only when explicitly advised and rollback in all other
cases. Because only with explicit advice to commit you know the code
behaved as intended. But if a program crashes or dies otherwise (OOM
for example) you cannot know whether all intended changes were applied.
So yes, the example is quite artificial (you also called it "naive"
IIRC). But what follows from bad code?
Cheers
robert