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

Barry Leiba wrote:

>>>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.
>
Can you clarify what kind of complexity you are talking about?

>But it might not
>matter, if we can agree on my other suggestion, so let's discuss that
>below.
>  
>
I tend to agree.

>>>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?
>
Yes. Or rather the other way around: not every test is expected to be 
used as an action. I was thinking about calling functions in C: they can 
be used in tests and they can also be called so that their return value 
is ignored.

>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.
>  
>
Good. Tests and actions are effectively in different namespaces.

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