On Sun, 14 Apr 2003, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> | 1 Should we allow URIs to point to scripts to include?
> the possibility of reliance on external resources should not be
I'm assuming your argument against this is "lack of utility"
not really. if scripts can be fetched by HTTP, you introduce a
reliance on a working name service both locally and at the remote
site. you also need to punch huge holes in your firewall.
furthermore, the script must be downloaded for each invocation of the
include statement, which puts an additional strain on the server, and
slows down throughput (== more deliveries running simultaneously).
which I suspect I can agree with.
well, I don't see the great utility, either :-)
> | 3 How should non-exist include scripts be handled?
> error at compile-time or run-time depending on the implementation.
I'd argue that these should be interpreted to be empty scripts,
since I suspect runtime errors could be more confusing to the end
user. (Since generally users don't see explicit error notices
from sieve runs).
The advantage of interpreting it as an empty script is you can
have your main script include stuff like "my-vacation-script"
which then can just be deleted when you come back, as opposed to
having to modify your main script.
heh. I'd prefer to keep my vacation-script around, and just disable
it from the main script. I see your point, though.
I guess the issue is what does the user expect to happen, and I
don't really like causing one script to start failing just because
an included script dissapears.
how about typos? those will be hard to find.