Re: Heirarchical error codes

[sman@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Mansour)]

Rob Earhart wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Doug Royer wrote:
> > In general I could agree. In CALSCH, the RFC's already define status
> > codes RFC2445, 2445, and perhaps 2446.
>
>   Just to outline my problems with them:
>
>   ) They're unwieldy and difficult to read in a protocol trace.

I don't know about unwieldy, but it can certainly be hard to remember the
meaning of an error given its number.

>   ) They're pretty specific to processing of iCalendar objects -- which
> is important in CAP, but not all of CAP.

???  I'm not sure what you're driving at here?

>   ) They impose a strict hierarchy on the response code space, which
> limits extensibility.

I don't see how. Could you explain this?

-Steve
begin:vcard 
n:Mansour;Steve
tel;fax:(650) 937-2103
tel;work:(650) 937-2378
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Netscape
version:2.1
email;internet:sman@netscape.com
title:Judge, Jury, Executioner
adr;quoted-printable:;;501 East Middlefield Road=0D=0A;Mountain View;CA;94043;
x-mozilla-cpt:;-12672
fn:Steve Mansour
end:vcard