2006/12/13, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> Do we really have a problem? Or is it something else?
>>
>> Last night, Gregory tested his fix, and I've build snapshots (r486417)
>> on x86 linux/win and x86_64 linux and spot checked with apps and such,
>> and things seem to work.
>>
>> I'n posting the snapshots now to ~geirm and will send a separate note
>> for people to evaluate.
>>
>
> Also catching up on mail. I suggested (on the other thread) that we
> need to define the return result for undefined properties, answering
> NULL seemed reasonable, but now I look at the vmiError enum in vmi.h it
> appears that we have already defined:
> "VMI_ERROR_NOT_FOUND -- The requested system property was not found"
>
>
This surprises me slightly - I would have imagined we would want to work
in a similar way
to the System.getSystem() method and return NULL in the case of a
non-existent property
being requested. However, it appears that GetSystemProperty() is
intended to return
VMI_ERROR_NOT_FOUND in this case.
I would say that since the function behaviour in this case has not yet
been clearly spec'ed
(and we have two VMs that behave differently) we should make a choice
now about which
return is correct and fix up the VMs. So, should we just return a NULL
property value and
no error code, or return VMI_ERROR_NOT_FOUND?
Is there any reason to distinguish these cases? I suppose no, then
returned NULL is fine.
--
Alexey
Regards,
Oliver
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
--
Oliver Deakin
IBM United Kingdom Limited
