Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> > 2. (much more involved solution) Promote all entry members to
> > first-class citizens, and in doing so, might I recommend losing
> > the "attributes" hash that lives in the entry, too? That hash is
> > a transient state between disk and structure, and need not be
> > toted around everywhere we go. The day someone actually has
> > custom entry things to track, a hash for ONLY those custom items
> > can be re-added.
>
> Karl and I have been talking about doing this for a while now. It's
> the Right Thing.
Yah, iirc we discussed this with Greg Stein when he was in town the
other week, too. I think doing the Right Thing is worth it here, even
though it takes a little more time. Let's get the svn_wc_entry_t mess
cleaned up once and for all.
Question, folks: do we want an open structure with settable members,
and a pair of reader/writer conversion functions? Or do we want an
opaque structure with accessor methods?
I lean toward the open structure, for simplicity, and don't see any
advantage to accessors here. But when we were talking with Greg, we
all seemed to think accessors were the way to go. Were we just hand
waving, or was there a real reason?
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 14 16:44:25 2002