Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> Hmm. Actually, that isn't necessarily true. I figured there would be a lot
> of work to pass config info across the RA interface. But if the config comes
> from a "proxies" file, then it can be completely isolated to ra_dav.
>
> In that sense, all of your config reading, processing, and proxy-setting is
> entirely confined to libsvn_ra_dav/session.c
>
> Ooh. I like that a ton.
>
> Because of the possibility of complete isolation of the proxy config stuff
> to ra_dav/session.c, then I'm a definite -0 or even -0.5 on the
> single-config approach. Unless I'm missing something, it seems to be a clear
> win to have a config file just for proxies, which is ra_dav specific.
Granted, ra_dav can and should read the proxy configuration directly,
rather than receiving it from libsvn_client. But ra_dav can do that
just as easily from a single big file as from a smaller one -- it just
ignores the stuff it doesn't care about. (Ignoring isn't any extra
work, it's just a matter of not querying the svn_config_t object about
those sections.) The proxy config stuff would *still* be completely
isolated to ra_dav/session.c.
I'm not seeing the clear win here. Proxies are specific to ra_dav,
and that will be true whether they are configured in a `proxies' file
or a `config' file.
The useability win you've mentioned (I haven't quoted it above) I
confess to find dubious. Some people (you and probably some others?)
say they prefer separate files. Other people (me, Ben, probably
others?) prefer one big file, that way there's never a question about
which file to browse or run isearch in. :-) Neither side is right; it
just means that there's no clear useability win either way, because it
depends on the user.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 13 01:46:44 2002