On 10/20/07, Chris Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paritosh Shah wrote:
>
> Thanks for the patches ... I'll take a look when I get some time.
>
> > I used "resource-exists" as the key instead of
> > "NON_EXTANT_RESOURCE" or "NO_RESOURCE" as suggested by Chris Darroch,
> > to avoid double negatives.
>
> I wanted to use such a term because the default case, when a module
> does nothing special, is that a resource exists. I think it's confusing
> if that default case ("resource exists") maps to something in r->notes being
> not defined (i.e., field does not exist in r->notes). I personally think
> it's less confusing if those few modules which need to signal that they're
> dealing with a non-extant resource must set a flag to that effect.
>
There are really three states here ( wrt ap_meets_conditions())
1. resource exists
2. resource does not exist
3. nothing is known about existence of the resource
Currently ap_meets_conditions() does not make any assumptions about
existance of the resource ( case 3 ). If we use a NO_RESOURCE flag
without addtional "Y" or "N" values, we can really only cover 2 states
( flag is set and flag is not set ). In the case that flag is not set,
we cannot directly assume that the resource exists, because this runs
the risk of breaking a lot of existing modules which do not set any
flags.
