Mark Phippard wrote:
>
> No, I am not trying to say either of those things. One way or another,
> the combination of these two API's ought to be sufficient. I was merely
> trying to articulate that I think the "get" API you added today is all
> that we will need and use in Subclipse. Of course when I look at the code
> I might find that I can in fact make use of the "is" API. All Subclipse
> has today is a constant of ".svn". I replaced the constant with a method
> call that returns the same value. Perhaps that code could be written
> differently in some places to use the "is" API, but at a minimun the "get"
> API should be all we need.
I think what Daniel's saying is that what Subclipse is doing today isn't
sufficient for what subversion is doing in 1.3. Curently, Subclipse
only knows about one directory. In svn13, subversion potentially knows
about 2 different dirs, ".svn" and "_svn". The get api returns _svn,
but the is api returns true for both names, as I understand it.
In places where Subclipse is just comparing a dir name against the adm
dir name, subclipse could use the is api through javahl. However, in
many places where Subclipse is using the get api, such as to register it
with Eclipse for hiding, it should actually call a third api that
doesn't currently exist, get_all_possible_admdirnames, which returns
{"_svn",".svn"}.
- Marc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 20 23:01:27 2005