On Sep 11, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Henry Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think a good exception name would be? (Or do you think an
> exception is the wrong error path here?)
Given that the other errors all reflect what specifically is responsible for the error given the servers state, I was expecting an error like:
Which clearly indicates the call failed because the server is read-only. The concept of "read-only commands" is kind of strange, which is what the current NotReadOnly exception refers to (the call itself is not a read-only call). ServerIsReadOnly fits into the current scheme of:
Command X failed due to condition Y on the server.
> My view is that the exception is badly named, and should indicate the
> actual error, like NodeNotWriteable or similar. It is, unfortunately, hard
> to make these changes in minor releases though, although I think we could
> consider it for 3.5.