This e-mail did not make much sense. What I meant was that if we keep consistency between all our codes it will give predictable results.
So all successes are 1000 OK Thanks Lance On 09/05/09 12:41, Lance Haig wrote: > Hi alex, > > I like the 1000 OK end as it makes writing other code easier as all the > commands that we will work with. > > So my vote in favour > > Lance > > On 09/05/09 12:19, Alex Hudson wrote: >> Hey everyone, >> >> Steve managed to bump his head on a change I made to the Store PROPGET >> command recently, while writing some new bindings. When you do a >> PROPGET, you can retrieve one or more properties from the Store - >> unfortunately, the responses change slightly in both cases. Before, >> you'd get something like: >> >> /Command/ >> /Response/ >> >> PROPGET /mail/INBOX/document nmap.flags >> >> >> >> 2001 nmap.flags 2 >> 18 >> >> >> PROPGET /mail/INBOX/document nmap.flags,nmap.length >> >> >> >> propget 11 nmap.flags,nmap.length >> >> 2001 nmap.flags 2 >> >> 18 >> >> 2001 nmap.length 3 >> >> 434 >> >> 1000 OK >> >> >> You can see in the second example that there is an extra return code - >> the 1000 OK - to indicate the end of a list. This lead to client code >> which would effectively implement two different functions - one to read >> a single property value, and another to read a list of values. That >> makes a small amount of sense in C but makes no sense in any other >> language, and to write it as a single function you have to count the >> number of properties being asked for before deciding whether or not to >> look for the final 1000 code. >> >> The change I made was to add the 1000 response to single property >> requests; and aside from the extra ConnWrite() this has only really >> resulted in code being removed - it simplifies the logic. >> >> I've changed the nmap client library to correctly pick up this change, >> and had already changed the Python library (I think!). However, we can >> revert these changes too - they're quite small. >> >> Does anyone have an opinion on reverting this? I didn't actually think >> there were any agents consuming this feature, but that was because I >> only grepped on the agent code (missing the nmap library - d'oh!) and >> probably wouldn't have made the change otherwise :S >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alex. >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by *MailScanner*<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bongo-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/bongo-devel > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ Bongo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/bongo-devel
