On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:15:21PM -0700, Daniel Rall wrote:
> 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.
My argument was for SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_FORBIDDEN, are you sure you mean
SVN_ERR_RA_FORBIDDEN? I'm fine with either.
Cheers,
Jelmer
--
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@samba.org> - http://jelmer.vernstok.nl/
01:25:52 up 19 days, 7:39, 10 users, load average: 2.88, 2.77, 2.57
Received on 2009-03-14 01:31:35 CET