Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <200603291450.k2TEoxa17841@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: AW: svn commit: r389697 -
 /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cache/mod_disk_cache.c
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:50:54 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?=" at Mar
 29, 2006 04:45:16 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Jim Jagielski=20
> >=20
> 
> > > +            file_cache_errorcleanup(dobj, r);
> > > +            return APR_EGENERAL;
> > > +        }
> >=20
> > Why don't we return rv ?
> 
> Because we also return APR_EGENERAL in the cases below. I think the =
> behaviour
> should be consistent. So if we think that returning rv is better we =
> should
> also do this below. I am fine with either decision.
> 

That seem to be the case when we have a general error. In other
places where we have a valid 'rv', we tend to return that.
Look at file_cache_recall_mydata() for example...

In the above, I think the return status may be useful, so
we shouldn't mask it, imo.

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
	    "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."