[AFS3-std] Re: AFSVol GetSizeV2 draft

[David Boyes]

> But the "transaction" above it doesn't exist in a standard. While
> conceptually it exists, the only place it's really documented as such
> is
> in the existing implementation(s). So, as I read it, giving the RPCs a
> successful return code is already tying us to the implementation, since
> it just comes from the convention of the C librx implementation. At
> least, that's how I read "if you really want to avoid making
> assumptions
> based on the implementation..."

Gotta start somewhere. Implied operations are not good practice -- if you k=
now something is going to happen, document it in a clear, unambiguous and u=
nderstandable fashion. Then we don't have this sort of discussion for the n=
ext time.=20

Really, how tough is it to #define RX_SUCCESS 0 and then use the constant i=
n the text instead of hardcoding a fixed value in the spec? Doesn't change =
the logic, and if someday there IS a reason to change it, you don't have to=
 go back and update a whole bunch of specifications. It improves the readab=
ility and understandability of the document for future readers.=20

> Personally, I'm fine with just saying "0" for now, just since it's
> consistent with the other RPCs specified. Using a constant in a
> document
> just for defining a new RPC seems like an odd place to introduce it.

Again, where else should you start, given that there isn't anywhere else to=
 do it? Previous bad habits aren't a good thing to propagate, and this is t=
he opportunity to start doing it in a forward-looking way.=20

Congratulations, you're the test case. 8-)