Re: [PATCH/RFC] Add separate error code for RA Forbidden

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 03:28:32PM -0700, Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer_at_samba.org> wrote:
> ...
> >> So the question becomes, do we want to leak this distinction from RFC
> >> 2616 into SVN_ERR_RA's or SVN_ERR_RA_DAV's error codes? The latter
> >> seems reasonable, but if we're going to put it there, perhaps it
> >> should be in the top-level.

> > What do you mean by top-level here exactly?

> SVN_ERR_RA_FORBIDDEN

> > Putting it in SVN_ERR_RA or SVN_ERR_RA_DAV both seems reasonable to me.
> > I would think it's not very likely that svn_ra_file or svn_ra_svn would
> > return this error, so perhaps that is a good reason to put it in
> > SVN_ERR_RA_DAV.

> Why would mod_dav_svn return this error, but svn or svnserve would
> not? Just for spec conformance? Just playing devil's advocate here.
svn_ra_svn and svn_ra_file both have more specific error codes they
can return. svn_ra_file can for example just return "Permission denied" with
the matching errno if it doesn't have the right permissions.
svn_ra_svn only refuses because of authorization afaik, it never gives
any "blanket" forbidden errors.

Cheers,

Jelmer

-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@samba.org> - http://jelmer.vernstok.nl/
 23:47:08 up 18 days,  6:00,  6 users,  load average: 0.02, 0.09, 0.44