[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

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

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_finemaltcoding.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:15:21 -0700

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer_at_samba.org> wrote:
> 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.

Alright, let's go with SVN_ERR_RA_FORBIDDEN.

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1316208
Received on 2009-03-13 07:15:42 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.