On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 10:31:15AM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
> > I have been thinking about putting the svn_wc_adm_access_t structures
> > into a hierarchy, with parents keeping a list of children, and
> > children a pointer to the parent. Then the initial commit processing
> > could lock the entire directory tree being committed before starting
> > the commit, and svn_wc_process_committed would not need to take out
> > any new locks. This might help with the cacheing as well, giving
> > parents access to children and vice-versa.
> >
> > svn_error_t *
> > svn_wc_adm_open(svn_wc_adm_access_t **adm_access,
> > svn_wc_adm_access_t *parent_access,
> > const char *path,
> > svn_boolean_t write_lock,
> > apr_pool_t *pool);
>
> Yick.
>
> If we need a hierarchy, can it at least be hidden inside the access_t
> structures? Passing two of them in the public interfaces seems
> awkward...
In short, I eventually came to the same conclusion as Philip. We
need to handle the hierarchy inside of the structure.
My only variation could be that we could use a static list of
locks that we have. I'm not sure how much I like that idea
though. But, that would avoid having to pass the parent_access
baton around. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 12 19:53:12 2002