>
> Given the repeatedly-asked-for functionalities (like error codes)
> for which the stopper has been the long-threatened protocol revision,
> I'd think it might be boring, but would hardly be thankless. Heck, I'd

> expect a few whoops of joy around the lists.
>
Yes. Error codes would be great.

Regards, Christoph



Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:18:43 +0100
Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>
Re: Error codes revisited
Christoph Haller wrote:
>>Given the repeatedly-asked-for functionalities (like error codes)
>>for which the stopper has been the long-threatened protocol revision,
>>I'd think it might be boring, but would hardly be thankless. Heck, I'd
> 
> 
>>expect a few whoops of joy around the lists.
>>
> 
> Yes. Error codes would be great.

Particularly if they arrive in conjunction with Bruce's "Nested 
Transaction" implementation. I image many people would like to 
create a subtransaction, which, if it fails due to a unique key 
violation, could recover and perform an update.

I'd personally like some way of mapping RI-related messages into 
  application-specific, perhaps localized, messages. Error codes 
will provide a nice starting point. Will the action and object 
upon which the action is being attempted also be available?

Mike Mascari
mascarm@mascari.com


Thu, 06 Mar 2003 03:41:03 -0500
Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>
Re: Error codes revisited