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

Re: [PATCH] [Issue 1715] svn protocol extensions

From: Peter N. Lundblad <peter_at_famlundblad.se>
Date: 2004-07-03 18:44:20 CEST

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Greg Hudson wrote:

> On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 04:52, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Greg Hudson wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 14:38, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> > > > - I'm sending text deltas and no checksums. Should I? (Same question also
> > > > applies to DAV. I will be consistent about this.)
> > >
> > > get_file has no checksums, so I'd say no, it's probably not worth it.
> > > Others might disagree, though.
> > >
> > Both the protocol file and the code look like get-file indeed has a
> > checksum. What do I miss?
>
[...]

> So, yes, I guess you want a checksum.
>
OK. I'll add to both DAV and SVN then.

> > > If the API allows early cancellation (i.e. the consumer function can
> > > cancel), then it's necessary. Otherwise, it's overkill. I don't think
> > > your current API allows early cancellation, nor is it really important
> > > for it to do so.
>
[...]
> Well, if you do a get_log and return an error from the log receiver,
> your ra session is also screwed up. (Possibly over ra_dav as well as
> ra_svn, but I'd have to check.) So yes, I'd say the caller has to close
> the connection in this case. Adding the asynchronous cancellation
> support necessary to keep the connection working is a lot of complexity
> for a case no caller is likely to care about.
>
OK. Thanks for this info.

Regards,
//Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jul 3 18:34:15 2004

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