On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk> wrote:
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2008-05-19 20:24:13 Philip Martin napisał(a):
>>> arfrever_at_tigris.org writes:
>>>
>>> > + svn_error_clear(svn_dso_load(&dso, libname));
>>> > + if (dso)
>>> > + {
>>> > + if (! apr_dso_sym(&provider_symbol, dso, funcname))
>>> > + {
>>> > + svn_auth_simple_provider_func_t func;
>>> > + func = (svn_auth_simple_provider_func_t) provider_symbol;
>>> > + func(provider, pool);
>>> > + ret = TRUE;
>>> > + }
>>> > + }
>>> > + return ret;
>>> > +}
>>> > +#endif
>>>
>>> I've seen this code before...
>>>
>>> Why is it acceptable to ignore errors from svn_dso_load?
>>>
>>> Why is it acceptable to use the dso variable if svn_dso_load returns
>>> an error?
>>
>> Fixed in r31367.
>
> The code still drops the error. Why is this code different from the
> RA loader code? Why don't you simply return the error?
Is it because we expect the error to happen and we want to just know
there was an error and fallback to the other mechanisms? For example
if SVN is built with gnome-keyring and you are using the command line
in a terminal where those libraries are not available? I know these
are scenarios we said this has to support and just fallback to the
other code.
Anyway, I am just speculating if that might be his reason.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2008-05-29 15:42:40 CEST