On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 02:24 PM, gstein_at_apache.org wrote:
>> + /* If we are talking to an old server, then the sha1-checksum property
>> + will not exist. In our property parsing code, we don't bother to
>> + check the <status> element which would indicate a 404. That section
>> + needs to name the 404'd property, so our parsing code only sees:
>> + <g0:sha1-checksum/>
>> + That is parsed as an empty string value for the property.
>> + When checking the property, if it is missing (NULL), or the above
>> + empty string, then we know the property doesn't exist.
>> + Strictly speaking, we could start parsing <status> and omit any
>> + properties that were 404'd. But the 404 only happens when we ask
>> + for a specific property, and it is easier to just check for the
>> + empty string. Since it isn't a legal value in this case, we won't
>> + get confused with a truly existent property. */
> I remember writing ra_neon's PROPFIND parsing logic to parse the
> per-property status field. Surely it can't be *that hard* to do the right
> thing here, and stop conflating the empty string with a NULL one.
404 can only happen for properties we specifically ask for. They are
Except for this one, on old servers.
I'm not going to write a hundred lines of code when an empty string
test works just fine.
Received on 2012-06-20 20:32:52 CEST