Hi Damitha,
Do we have lots of code written in the way that you have mentioned? If yes,
we may have to keep the existing code. But as you have mentioned previously
if we are neglecting a error and calling another function that implies two
things. Actually error is not an error that we should be concerned of or we
are doing bad coding. In both cases we should remove the unnecessary else
part.
I have done a profiling recently and it shows that the function with the
greatest hit count is axutil_error_set_status_code. This function takes so
much time that it is around half the time of what guththila_next has taken
(guththila_next is a function with a very high workload).
Regards,
Supun..
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Damitha Kumarage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
> I had the same concern and tried a similar kind of fix few weeks back. But
> because of the following explanation it seems we have to bear with the
> current code.
>
> Suppose we have implemented your fix. say we call to functions x, y and z
> in that order. Say inside function x it set an error code status.
>
> Now we call y. Inside y() we neglect the error code and say we do even a
> database commit.
> Now we call to z(). At the beginning of z say we do an param check. If all
> parameters are good to go it should pass param checks. But it return an
> error (because of previously set error status in function x) even when all
> parameters are good. This is unfair for function z() and it is also
> misleading.
>
> So the best thing to do is to handle error status before calling any
> important function which has param checkings etc. For example in function
> y() we have even done a database commit neglecting the error status which
> is not good.
>
> thanks
> Damitha.
>
>
> Dimuthu Gamage wrote:
>
> Hi devs,
>>
>> Currently in AXIS2_PARAM_CHECK, if the param is null we set the status
>> code to AXIS2_FAILURE and if not null set the status code AXIS2_SUCCESSS
>>
>> #define AXIS2_PARAM_CHECK(error, object, error_return) \
>> if (!object) \
>> { \
>> AXIS2_ERROR_SET_ERROR_NUMBER(error,
>> AXIS2_ERROR_INVALID_NULL_PARAM); \
>> AXIS2_ERROR_SET_STATUS_CODE(error, AXIS2_FAILURE); \
>> return error_return; \
>> } \
>> else \
>> { \
>> AXIS2_ERROR_SET_STATUS_CODE(error, AXIS2_SUCCESS); \
>> }
>>
>>
>> My question is, is it ok to set the status code to AXIS2_SUCCESS,
>> Because
>> 1. If we are in happy path, the status code is already AXIS2_SUCCESS, we
>> don't need to explicitly set that.
>> 2. The macro can overwrite the status, That is if the status is already
>> set to failure by an early case, this macro will overwrite the status to
>> SUCCESS which is wrong.
>>
>> So my suggestion is to remove the else part from that macro?. Please let
>> me know your ideas, I may be wrong on this.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Dimuthu
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
