Well, I'd see if everyone else is happy first, but personally that looks good to me.
Whats the difference between 200 and 290?
I also think that the first line should echo back the command with its arguments.
This would mean something like:
400 ERROR uknown /etc/foo 401 ERR <errno code> FILE NOT FOUND
Would it be better to have each minor error detail use a different number?
Thoughts?
Joel PS Like that trick with the stringstream
Timothy Brownawell wrote:
On 5/17/05, Joel Crisp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yep, a number at the beginning of each line. It lets you detect the start of the next header, distinguish different types of output easily, handle optional or repeated blocks of output etc. It also allows you to detect badly or prematurely terminated blocks, since the start of the next command will cause a reset.
Hmm...
200 success 250 output 290 done (successful)
400 error/general 410 error/syntax 420 error/unknown command 450 error text 490 done (not successful)
I think the change to the existing commands should be fairly minor, an extra %s at the start of the printf which is either "201 " or "" for each line.
After poking around a bit, it turns out to be even easier. Pass the command a stringstream instead of the real output, and run "prefix_lines_with" (transforms.hh) on it before printing.
I don't think stripping line prefixes is an insurmountable problem - after all, there are many other protocols which do something similar.
Read the RFC for dict (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2229.html) or the mailing list expansion in SMTP (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html) for more examples
_______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
