Jörg von Frantzius <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 12/02/2005
> (Bugzilla would call that a mid-air collision ;)
> Mark Phippard schrieb:
> > I just do not think it makes sense to offer an option in Subclipse
> > know does not work completely especially when there are good
> > It is not that difficult to obtain JavaHL anymore and the only
> > using JavaSVN is file:// access for which there is a workaround.
> > Does anyone have any strong feelings against this? And if you do, are
> > willing to invest the time to make the CommandLine adapter work? With
> > new --xml options in Subversion 1.3, most features could probably be
> > implemented reliably if someone wanted to invest the time to do so. I
> > not have the time or inclination to do so.
> I'd like to express my concern that the svn command line client per se
> seems to be the most robust of the 3 interfaces, at least that's my
> impression (JavaSVN and JavaHL are not hosted and developed on tigris,
> are they?). So it would make for a good last resort when there are
> problems with the other two.
Here comes another collision :)
You couldn't be more wrong. JavaHL is an official part of Subversion.
Subversion is really a set of libraries. The command line is the default
"UI" consumer of these libraries. JavaHL is the official Subversion Java
bindings to the same libraries. It uses the exact same code as the
I gave more details in the other email.
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
Received on Sat Dec 3 01:45:03 2005