On Oct 29, 2004, at 8:11 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> cmpilato@localhost.localdomain wrote on 10/28/2004 11:08:37 PM:
>>
>>> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
>>>
>>>> Here are the arguments I know of for putting the lock table in the
>>>> FS
>>>> back end:
>>>
>>> You forgot one:
>>>
>>> * If the community can't agree about whether to use Berkeley DB
>>> or
>>> some flat-file system to implement the lock table.
>>
>> That was the one point I wanted to raise as well. We are nearing
>> completion on our port of Subversion to OS/400. In all likelihood, we
>> could not have done the port without the fsfs backend. So I am
>> hoping and
>> praying that the locking implementation will not require BDB, at least
>> when using a fsfs backend.
>
> I think that is guaranteed. Having provided the feature of a BDB-less
> server in 1.1, compatibility rules forbid removing that feature again
> for any 1.x release - and common sense suggests that it would be
> foolish to *ever* remove that feature.
>
I'm not worried about this. If we decide to implement locks in the
repos library, we can use "some random dbm"... whatever happens to be
picked up by APR. I believe that APR *always* picks up some system dbm
library. There's a whole apr_dbm_*() set of APIs, and mod_dav_svn
already uses them to manage a private table in repos/dav/.... even when
the repository itself is fsfs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 29 16:51:46 2004