[TSVN] Re: Changes in 2634

SteveKing wrote:
> Will Dean <svn@indcomp.co.uk> wrote:
>> I'm not overjoyed about some of the changes in 2634, particularly the
>> wrapping of code in SVNFolderStatus in a catch(...) block.
>>
>> The response from the cache (after the pointer fix-up which occurs in
>> RemoteCacheLink) should be consistent, and shouldn't have broken
>> data in it.
>
> As you say: _shoud_ be consistent! But you can't be sure here. And I'd
> rather have a catch block around such code than have the shell crash.
> Also, you must consider the data coming from another application than
> our own (e.g. a 'bad' program trying to do some nasty things).
>
>> If we feel we need to be defensive about data coming in from the
>> cache (I don't think we do, actually), then I think we should
>> validate it in RemoteCacheLink, and not just munge around it with
>> catch(...) blocks in the code which uses the data.
>
> That may be better, yes.

I think we _do_ need to be defensive in the shell extension. However
good the cache app, you can never guarantee that you haven't overlooked
something. As you say, catch(...) should be a last resort, but in the
absence of proper validation it's better than nothing.

>> I haven't changed anything in SVNFolderStatus, but I would like to
>> register a -10 vote on this. (Do I need 9 sock-puppets to register
>> a -10?)

You would have to hire a Doctor Octopus costume to wear them all (nearly
all), and then you run the risk that people won't take you seriously ;-)

Simon

-- 
       ___
  oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
 (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
   \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
   /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org