[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
error numbers.... a continuing pain
From: |
Sam Roberts |
Subject: |
error numbers.... a continuing pain |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:56:37 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.16i |
Bon soir,
It's getting to the point that EINVAL is returned for pretty
much everything, making gdb pretty much the only way to determine
what isn't working. sieve is having a hard time giving a useful
diagnostic to the user.
What about assigning our own error numbers with values:
#define MU_ERR_BASE 0x10000
#define MU_ERR_MAILBOX_NULL 0x10001
#define MU_ERR_FOLDER_NULL 0x10002
_MAILBOX_NOT_OPEN
_AUTH_FAILED
_BAD_FORMAT (for url and address parsing)
etc...
Hasn't this been kicked around before?
We could even break it into classes
0x100?? generic (we've already got EINVAL, ENOMEM, etc for lots of
the generic errors, but there might be others)
0x101?? mailbox
0x102?? folder
0x103?? mailer
What do you all think?
Sam
p.s. Almost all the conversation about sieve on the CMU mailing
list is of the "it's not working, and there's no indication why,
what do I do?". I'd like to do better.
--
Sam Roberts <address@hidden> (Vivez sans temps mort!)
- error numbers.... a continuing pain,
Sam Roberts <=