On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 20:09, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 17:11, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote: >>> At present, whatever was in errno at the time the dav_error {} was >>> created is treated as an apr_status_t by ap_log_rerror(). >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200211.mbox/%[email protected]%3e >>> >>> dav_error {} should have an apr_status_t field instead of an errno >>> field; functions which create a dav_error should have an apr_status_t >>> parameter. >>> >>> If there's no direct apr_status_t representation of the error, the >>> caller will have to decide what to do (no magic portable solution >>> AFAIK, but no worse than today). >>> >>> Concerns? >> >> dav_error was designed during the 1.3 series. APR wasn't even being >> discussed. So yeah... there is definitely a disconnect from "then" to >> "now". >> >> I'd be quite supportive of changing that, though (strictly speaking) >> that is probably an API change. > > well, yes it is an API change ;) I think the issue is whether or not > you in the DAV community want to push it on your third-party > colleagues. > > A third-party mod could define something like this for compatibility: > > #if AP_MODULE_MAGIC_AT_LEAST(xxx,y) > #define foo_dav_new_error(p, stat, errid, rv, desc) \ > dav_new_error(p, stat, errid, rv, desc) > #else > #define foo_dav_new_error(p, stat, errid, rv, desc) \ > (errno = (rv), \ > dav_new_error(p, stat, errid, desc)) > #endif > > and go ahead and change its code to pass in an apr_status_t. > > If it is too ugly to force this on third-party modules, we'll need to > add new APIs and use those ourselves, as it is too ugly for us to keep > mismanaging the error codes.
I have no opinion in this space. I'm very much out of touch nowadays with the mod_dav users/community. The one particular user of mod_dav that I'm concerned with is mod_dav_svn, and *that* is about to become an Apache project :-) svn can certainly use that macro. "You" get to measure the disruption to other API users of Apache. In fact, we floated the idea of whether mod_dav_svn can/should be transferred over to httpd, rather than maintained as part of svn. Total random comment, but a couple people went "hmm...." It would be kinda neat for any Apache server to have built-in support for svn :-) (and would solve a bunch of versioning combinatorics for svn...) Cheers, -g
