Will Dean wrote:
> At 10:46 08/02/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>
>> 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 strongly disagree, at least at this stage in development. I would
> much rather find problems with the cache now, than have them masked
> by dubious catch(...) blocks.
I agree that we want to get the bugs out into the open, not mask them.
But just allowing explorer to crash is not a good way of doing that from
a user's point of view. In exceptional circumstances you could get into
a position where explorer crashes shortly after starting, which makes it
harder to recover from, and is likely to put people off trying the new
cache. Throwing out meaningful error messages would be much more useful
IMHO.
> 4. To avoid bad, confusing and incorrect code having an impact on the
> shell, an catch block is added to silently smudge across errors in
> the cache.
>
> My take on this is that we should be removing bad, confusing code from
> TSVN, not avoiding its symptoms. And this is doubly so at this stage,
> where we are asking early-adopters to help us test it.
Absolutely. The defensiveness in the shell should _only_ be to protect
against incorrect code which has not been discovered yet, not to mask
effects of known bad code. But that's not a reason for dropping all
defences.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 8 12:36:28 2005