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

Re: couple questions

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2000-11-02 23:27:33 CET

On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 04:38:56PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> > Over the past few weeks, I've seen two big concepts get booted out of
> > Subversion, but I either missed the discussion because of travel, or it
> > occurred offline.
> >
> > 1) directory-entry properties [vs node props and revision props]
> > 2) libsvn_svr
> >
> > I'm all for having both of these tossed, but I did want to ask for a bit of
> > clarification on the [current] rationale behind them going away. Was it as
> > simple as "we didn't see a need for those features, given our new,
> > enlightened thinking" ?
> Yep. We're Enlightened, And You're Not(tm).


Well, I can deal with that... I've certainly got no silly notion that I'm an
Enlightened individual. You should see me after half a dozen margueritas :-)

But... since Karl is the lead, he should get the wrist-slap for not
communicating large changes :-)

> First, we decided that we weren't going to worry about hard links for
> a long time. That's the big, controversial decision. In the absence
> of hard links, there's no distinction between directory entry
> properties and node properties.

Right. Sounds good.

> Second, it seemed to us that that libsvn_svr didn't have anything left
> to do --- that it had apparently all been absorbed into mod_dav_svn.
> Every responsibility assigned to it was something that Apache or
> mod_dav_svn wanted to do itself.

Well, I'm not sure about the term "wanted", but yah... _svr was looking
awfully thin. We can certainly build mod_dav_svn and libsvn_fs, and then
take a look and see if we want to rejigger the line and/or introduce a
middle layer. But at the moment, the two are pretty tightly coupled around

We have two other code bodies that will want to talk to the FS, and which
may need some functionality that fell into mod_dav_svn:

1) libsvn_ra_local
2) glue wrappers for scripting languages to talk to the FS

Those will probably cause any tweaking of the APIs and/or intro of new APIs.

Previous features of the SVR? Node-level ACLs, and possibly (script/hook)
plugins. With SVR gone, we need new locations for this stuff. mod_dav_svn is
fine, but libsvn_ra_local will need them, too. Maybe these items are sibling
libraries to FS?

> That's my recollection, anyway. Surely Karl and Ben will jump in if
> I'm editing history too egregiously.

:-) ... Ben 'fessed up, too. Thanks for the clarification, guys!


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006

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