Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> Yes, and the only problem is that although we both are the opinion that
> something is wrong under those situations we still differ in the opinion which
> action should be done. I'm still convinced that it's not really reasonable to
> use assertions (which do the exit of the process). But as we discovered by our
> discussion now there is no generally correct way. So your assertion-based
> approach can be acceptable although it makes life of the users nasty.
No. Users should not see the assertions, unless there are bugs. If an
assertion is seen during normal operation, then there is a bug. The
problem is that you are claiming something happens during normal
operation that causes an assertion to fail. However, this claim
currently appears to be erroneous.
Your approach hides bugs, which is why I'm not currently prepared to
change this correct assertion into an incorrect and bug-concealing
logging message.
> Nevertheless I _personally_ prefer non-assertion based error checking where
> error codes are passed up to the callers and where the processed don't die.
What? We've already agreed that assertions should not be used in place
of error handling. Do not put words into my mouth.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
and Technical Director|Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
A.L. Digital Ltd, |Apache-SSL author http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to SSLeay (mod_ssl) www.engelschall.com/sw/mod_ssl/
Official Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
