On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer_at_samba.org> wrote:
> 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.
I meant SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_FORBIDDEN, just neglected to edit after cut-and-paste.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1319714
Received on 2009-03-14 02:19:25 CET