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

Re: update processing

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2000-12-17 14:09:39 CET

On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 02:29:44AM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > The only appeal of this model was it's symmetric niftiness, I suppose.
> > That, and the fact that there would be a lot of shared code on the
> > filesystem side. In the current situation, libsvn_ra_local needs to
> > learn to drive the filesystem API for it's own specific needs -- it
> > probably can't just duplicate code out of libsvn_ra_dav. And I'm
> > guessing the filesystem API is a bit hairier than the editor API.
>
> Libsvn_ra_dav doesn't touch the filesystem API at all; it's on the wrong
> side of the network connection, with mod_dav_svn on the other side.

Right!

> Libsvn_ra_local and mod_dav_svn should share the bits for accessing the
> filesystem. Maybe mod_dav_svn could live on top of libsvn_ra_local once
> it's implemented, and ra_local would become the "real" public filesystem
> API. Whether that makes sense for mod_dav_svn, I have no idea; GregS can
> answer that one, no doubt.

Nah... that would actually suck :-)

The basic problem is that the editor interface is *very* stateful. You have
batons flying everywhere. On the other hand, server requests (HTTP and DAV)
are effectively stateless. Whoop... where's the root_baton?! Furg.

So, no... we actually want to avoid the editor interface between mod_dav_svn
and the FS API.

> > But practicality is important, too. It's no big deal. :)
>
> Decoupling mod_dav_svn from libsvn_fs would be practical, too. :-)

Gah. mod_dav has a pluggable back-end. mod_dav_svn is all about plugging
mod_dav into the FS. We certainly don't need to abstract anything on the
DAV/server side. But the question probably revolves more around the coupling
with the FS interface... On that side, we should be able to find some common
stuff to share [with the ra_local mechanism].

Note ... I think we might want to re-introduce libsvn_svr as a utility
layer over the FS. That layer would share some funcs between mod_dav_svn and
libsvn_ra_local. I'm not sure what it would do (we'd need to start ra_local
to really tell), but we've got the concept there...

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:17 2006

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