Re: Adding LAN support to Subversion - Clarification

Just to make sure I get the expert's opinoins on this, wouldn't you be
concerned about synchronizing the two libraries?

Since they are *supposed* to work the same way w/ the added extra step, would
it really be so bad as to have the local schema, have the ability to tack on a
pre-post call (a la Greg's suggestion)?

Or as Erik suggested, proxy the call into the ra_local which effectively does
the same thing using a different method?

Dunno. I smell confusion from having two copies of effectively one body of
code for the ra_local.

Synchronization of the code comes to mind as an issue. Maybe this is a moot
point. I don't know.

I bow to the wisdom of others after raising the issue. I don't know enough
about the internals to make that call.

-- 
Shamim Islam
BA BS
Ben Collins-Sussman said:
> "Erik Huelsmann" <e.huelsmann@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> Then I suppose David could also write a proxy library, which creates
>> the exclusive lock file and sends the rest of the commands into
>> libsvn_ra_local for real processing? [There would not be any need to
>> reinvent the wheel...]
>
> Sure, why not?
>
> He could write a new libsvn_ra_foo which has its own foo:// schema,
> and 99% of it just makes calls into libsvn_ra_local.
>
> Or he could just duplicate the whole libsvn_ra_local directory, rename
> the library, change its registered schema, and change its open()
> function.
>
> I think the latter solution is probably easier.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org