kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net> writes:
>
>>Man, I hope so. I can't imagine how painful patch application and
>>backporting will be if we convert all our svn_error_t's to
>>svn_error_t2's.
>
>
> I would go so far as to say that deciding we must create svn_error2_t
> would be a showstopper for this solution. It would be better to go
> with some completely different solution, such as using a special
> prefix for the custom message in security-sensitive errors, e.g.:
>
> err = svn_error_createf
> (apr_err, NULL,
> "[SVN:SEC] Revision %d not found in path '%s'",
> rev, path);
>
> Translators would know to leave that part alone, and the caller could
> look for that prefix in err->message.
>
> Again, I'm not saying I prefer this kluge to simply tacking a new
> field onto the end of 'svn_error_t'. But I'd certainly prefer it to
> creating 'svn_error2_t'.
+1, reving svn_error_t is just not feasable. If the consensus is that
it's not dangerous to add a field to it I'd say go with that, otherwise
the kludge seems like the best work around available.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 13 20:56:11 2005