Re: Sanity check: removing src_err

On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 12:20, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
> I understand his point. But I won't be putting Oracle or MySQL error
> codes into APR space. I think it would be confusing. Often times, n
> number of errors can be treated as a single condition. That doesn't
> mean I want to lose the granularity/information altogether.

In the general case, the fine-grained information in a third-party error
might be more complicated than a single integer. So if we want an
svn_error_t to contain this information (and I'm not sure we do),
src_err isn't a very good way of doing it.

> The bottom line is that I'm OK with the change. If I need this type of
> behavior, and I think I will I'll just create an ERROR code like I
> mentioned in my later e-mail response.

I don't quite understand this proposal. If you mean that there would be
an APR error code which says "child->apr_err is a third-party package's
error code," then I find that hackish.

I also don't understand the case for error-handling callbacks. If an
error requires special processing by an inner module, why not perform
that processing before passing back the error in the first place?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 10 18:33:58 2002