[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-sieve-convert-03.txt

2011-09-24 08:49:03
Stephan Bosch wrote:

Op 20-9-2011 0:53, Barry Leiba schreef:

I personally prefer the simplicity of doing the action and test together. That said, I'm happy to specify that the test not take the action, if that's the WG consensus.

I see a problem with that approach: the test can determine whether the conversion is supported without performing it. But it can't determine whether it will succeed until it performs it. If the input is corrupted or mislabelled, how do we have a condition on that? Would it always have to make the script fail with a runtime error?

So I'm looking for others to weigh in. Do you prefer the action to be taken along with the test? Or do you prefer having to repeat the text, once for the test and again to do the action?

I'd like the test to have the action side-effect. That is indeed also what I understood from your initial query. I agree that first testing and then performing the action is much of a hassle, both for the implementer of the Sieve interpreter and the Sieve script author.

>From what I see in RFC5228 section 14 and in the old RFC3028, tests having side-effects were originally forbidden explicitly, but are allowed now as per RFC5228. I guess there is a reason for this. However, to my knowledge, this is the first time this line is truly crossed, so I understand Alexey's reservations. Anyway, I do think the advantages outweigh the concerns in this case.

Ok. I suppose I can live with this.

sieve mailing list