Re: about the recent client changes...

Bruce Korb wrote:

> Branko Cibej wrote:
>
>> There exist systems where "fork" doesn't exist -- e.g., it's gruesomly
>> expensive and inconvenient to implement. Is the only for creating a
>> subprocess so that you can write "exit(1)" instead of "return 1"? If so,
>> please consider doing without subprocesses.
>
>
> Even WinNT and WinME have fork().

Not that I'm aware of. You must be thinking of cygwin, which does
implement fork -- in a "gruesomely expensive and inconvenient" way.

> Besides that, the `you can write'
> must refer to everyone in all client-side routines throughout SVN.

Absolutely.

> It is easier and safer to cope with a dead child than rely on
> all routines doing the right thing. But, hey. If you want to count
> on all routines cleaning up correctly rather than letting fork/exit
> do it, cool. I was just thinking that with fork/exit you are certain
> to have bullet proof code.

Certain, are you? Let me tell you the about the time when ... ;-)

> Deprive Win9x of the shell version, I say
> :-).

There's really no need to do that. As Greg S said, APR pools + cleanup
will do just fine. I may even agree to combine that with "longjmp", if
the unwinding code becomes too hairy. But I don't think it will, because
it hasn't. :-)

-- 
Brane �ibej
    home:   <brane_at_xbc.nu>             http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
    work:   <branko.cibej_at_hermes.si>   http://www.hermes-softlab.com/
     ACM:   <brane_at_acm.org>            http://www.acm.org/