Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sieve-convert-02.txt

>> Now, this doesn't take into account Alexey's comment that he'd like to
>> see a runtime error when conversion fails, so I want to push on this:
>> What is the use case?  Is it more valuable to the use case for a
>> failed conversion to crash the script, or for it to just continue?
>> The sense I have is that it should continue (which is why I wrote the
>> text above).
>
> "I've asked you and you ignored me" behavior doesn't seem right in Sieve. I
> don't think any other extension does that.

I don't think this is a good reason to have it work this way, unless
we have a use case that merits the extra complexity.  But it might not
matter, if we can agree on my other suggestion, so let's discuss that
below.

>> Finally, I had an idea for how we could do the testing, which might
>> satisfy both issues:
>> Why not have the "convert" action *also* be a test.  Like this:
>>
>> *** convert with no test ***
>>      require ["mime", "fileinto", "convert"];
>>      if header :mime :anychild :contenttype
>>                "Content-Type" "image/tiff"
>>      {
>>        convert "image/tiff" "image/jpeg" "pix-x" "320" "pix-y" "240";
>>        fileinto "INBOX.pics";
>>      }
>>
>>
>> *** convert with test ***
>>      require ["mime", "fileinto", "convert"];
>>      if header :mime :anychild :contenttype
>>                "Content-Type" "image/tiff"
>>      {
>>        if convert "image/tiff" "image/jpeg" "pix-x" "320" "pix-y" "240"
>>        {
>>          fileinto "INBOX.pics";
>>        }
>>      }
>>
>>
>> So it could work either way.  In the case where it's used in a test,
>> it would evaluate TRUE if it ran with no errors -- that is, the
>> conversion is supported, the parameters are correct, and no
>> conversions failed
...
>> If it's used only as an action, with no test, then any failure generates
>> a runtime error.
>>
>> What do people think about that?  This would be the first action that
>> could also be used as a test, so think about whether that's good for
>> the language.  I like it, and I think it makes things very simple.
>
> I don't mind that. But I don't think that that should imply any general
> correlation between actions and tests for all future extensions we might
> design.

I don't understand that comment; can you explain it?

Do you mean that making this both an action and a test shouldn't imply
that any other actions can be used as tests also?  I certainly agree:
of course it shouldn't.  Future extensions will define their behaviour
as they like, and might or might not use this model.  This model makes
sense here, I think.  It won't make sense in general, and this
wouldn't be a general change in the behaviour of Sieve actions.

Barry
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve