July 18, 2011
12:34 p.m.
Yes I have the impression that this is what we should do and do it in 1.3 and 1.4 Stef
Another problem with the fork not mentioned yet, is the assumption all subscriber actions will have been carried out by the time next statement occurs. fork:'ing breaks that, and you can't make the assumption true without conflicting with the reason to fork: in the first place. Another argument in favor of only forking on unhandled exceptions I guess :)
@#after: gripe in previous post: meh, ansi...
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Problem-with-announcements-in-Seaside-when-using-Pharo... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.