It sounds like you are aware that the expression can renege on its promise by
containing a factor that zeroes the whole thing out in some conditions. And
you are correct that the draining policy does not accommodate such a policy.
That was intentional, but perhaps the ramifications were not fully digested,
or perhaps the intention was to not rely on shifty expressions that zero
themselves out but rather to introduce a first class policy mechanism for
interrupting retirement.
Thanks for the insights, Dan. The issue at hand isn't really
interrupting retirement so much as preventing the job from entering
retirement in the first place -- if we're putting the job on hold because
it's misbehaving, we don't want to give it any more time to misbehave.
We presently don't have a first-class way to express that.
Having said that, even if we did, we _would_ still need a
first-class mechanism for interrupting retirement (because the job may
start misbehaving in retirement). It's not immediately clear, however,
that anyone would actually want to be more tolerant of retirees than other
jobs (retiring is scheduling state, not a job state), and so it may make
more sense to have the first-class "self-protection" expressions just be
universally effective.
- ToddM
|
![[Computer Systems Lab]](http://www.cs.wisc.edu/pics/csl_logo.gif){kind=logo}