apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Kew <n...@webthing.com>
Subject Re: Reducing #ifdef burden on APR applications
Date Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:26:11 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On August 22, 2005 1:35:48 PM +0100 Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> wrote:
>> I disagree.  For example, APR_EOF is an end-condition, not an error.
>> apr_errno even defines different ranges of codes for different things.
>> In practical terms, suppose I implement APR for Platform X, but leave
>> some parts (which my application doesn't happen to need)
>> unimplemented, returning APR_ENOTIMPL.  Now if we've used APR_ENOTIMPL
>> for a no-op success, *all apps* that use the feature have lost the
>> distinction between success and a failure that can't be ignored.
> Not true.  The application can then decide what to do in the presence of 
> the APR_ENOTIMPL case - in this case, we can document that apr_thread_* 
> foo can return APR_ENOTIMPL if the underlying OS doesn't support it.

No, I still disagree.  The fundamental point is that it leaves us using
ENOTIMPL in a manner that is both success (it's a no-op) and failure
(it's not implemented because noone got round to it yet).  I want my
applications to know when they're dealing with an error!

Nick Kew

View raw message