[SR-Users] About setflag()'s parameter

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 7/6/10 11:34 AM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
> On Jul 06, 2010 at 10:24, Daniel-Constantin Mierla<miconda at gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 7/6/10 10:16 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
>>      
>>> Daniel,
>>>
>>> Based on this, I think I was erroneous in suggesting that plain
>>> flags (setflag, isflagset) are transaction-associated.  They seem
>>> to be message-associated, not transaction.  Is this right?
>>>        
>> in first place is associated to message, then inherited to
>> transaction (when that is created) and kept for the life of the
>> transaction. So both associations are true, of course, a matter of
>> whether the transaction was created or not at respective time.
>>      
> Not exactly, the flags are updated at t_relay() time, even if the
> transaction was created before by t_newtran().
> E.g.:
>
> flags a, b;
>
>      setflag(a);
>      t_newtran();
>      setflag(b);
>      t_on_failure("failure_route");
>      t_on_reply("reply_route");
>      t_relay();
>   =>  both a&  b will be set in the reply_route or failure_route.
>    

right, maybe my phrasing was not clear. I wanted to mean that when the 
transaction is created the flags become associated to the transaction - 
they can be updated afterwards (e.g., failure/onreply route as well).

Cheers,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/