[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: couple questions

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2000-11-02 23:27:33 CET

On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 04:38:56PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> > Over the past few weeks, I've seen two big concepts get booted out of
> > Subversion, but I either missed the discussion because of travel, or it
> > occurred offline.
> >
> > 1) directory-entry properties [vs node props and revision props]
> > 2) libsvn_svr
> >
> > I'm all for having both of these tossed, but I did want to ask for a bit of
> > clarification on the [current] rationale behind them going away. Was it as
> > simple as "we didn't see a need for those features, given our new,
> > enlightened thinking" ?
>
> Yep. We're Enlightened, And You're Not(tm).

Heh.

Well, I can deal with that... I've certainly got no silly notion that I'm an
Enlightened individual. You should see me after half a dozen margueritas :-)

But... since Karl is the lead, he should get the wrist-slap for not
communicating large changes :-)

> First, we decided that we weren't going to worry about hard links for
> a long time. That's the big, controversial decision. In the absence
> of hard links, there's no distinction between directory entry
> properties and node properties.

Right. Sounds good.

> Second, it seemed to us that that libsvn_svr didn't have anything left
> to do --- that it had apparently all been absorbed into mod_dav_svn.
> Every responsibility assigned to it was something that Apache or
> mod_dav_svn wanted to do itself.

Well, I'm not sure about the term "wanted", but yah... _svr was looking
awfully thin. We can certainly build mod_dav_svn and libsvn_fs, and then
take a look and see if we want to rejigger the line and/or introduce a
middle layer. But at the moment, the two are pretty tightly coupled around
the SVN-FS API.

We have two other code bodies that will want to talk to the FS, and which
may need some functionality that fell into mod_dav_svn:

1) libsvn_ra_local
2) glue wrappers for scripting languages to talk to the FS

Those will probably cause any tweaking of the APIs and/or intro of new APIs.

Previous features of the SVR? Node-level ACLs, and possibly (script/hook)
plugins. With SVR gone, we need new locations for this stuff. mod_dav_svn is
fine, but libsvn_ra_local will need them, too. Maybe these items are sibling
libraries to FS?

> That's my recollection, anyway. Surely Karl and Ben will jump in if
> I'm editing history too egregiously.

:-) ... Ben 'fessed up, too. Thanks for the clarification, guys!

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.