Re: Change #2: Modify prototypes of replace_*() and add_*()

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > Why we need a "target" revision:
>
> > When updating the WC, the RA layer needs to specify the new
> > version of the object being created.
>
> Isn't this a constant for a given update operation?

I also am confused (but possibly misremembering).

There's no doubt about base_revision being an argument to replace_*().
It's used to conveniently check that received data is still applicable
to the target entity. Although that check could be done entirely via
local bookkeeping, it's just simpler and more robust to have a
parameter to compare against.

As for the target_revision, there were two lines of thinking:

   1. It's a constant across the entire update, so just mention it at
      the beginning of the edit and don't make it a parameter to any
      of the replace_*() or add_*() functions.

   2. Do pass it to each replace_*() or add_*(), because although it's
      constant across the update right now, things might not always
      so.

Now, I actually had thought we agreed on #1. But Ben was taking notes
and I wasn't, and a *lot* of things were discussed. What does
everyone else recall from that discussion? Was there a good argument
against #1 or for #2?

-K
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:19 2006