On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 08:55:50AM -0400, mark benedetto king wrote:
> 2.) The library consumes its own API. While there's nothing wrong with
> this, it does mean that nearly all of the exported functions would have
> needed baton-ized versions. Take a look. There are a whole bunch of
> exported functions.
>
> My feeling is that libsvn_wc needs to be split into two layers: one that
> is baton-only, and another that consumes that one's API. This should
> resolve (2), and make it easier to focus on (1). This will be a big
> effort, but the payoffs could be huge. I measured, IIRC, over 90% of
> client-side processing spent in manipulating the entries files.
>
I disagree. Rather, I think we should export the baton carrying functions, as
well as two functions to create/finish with batons. Then the consumer of the
API determines the life of the baton. This makes sense, since they are the
only ones who know how long the operation is going to last.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson http://www.pilch-bisson.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Wed Jul 10 15:12:52 2002