Re: Alternatives for remote access?

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:05:32AM +0200, brane@xbc.nu wrote:
> Nonsense! Where did you get that idea? ACLs (and locks) will be a feature of the
> repository, and therefore exposed by all RA methods. We might copy ACL
> _semantics_ from the DAV spec, but that's all.

When I was discussing ACLs with Greg, he pointed out to me that
it is useless to have ACLs on anything other than ra_dav.

Since ra_local (and consequently ra_pipe) requires write access to
the BDB files, if you don't like the ACLs, you can simply bring up
python + BDB bindings and edit the repository. The same would go
for a hypothetical ra_sql access layer.

Therefore, if we were to go to the hassle of defining ACLs via
ra_local, it merely provides a false sense of security. So, I
believe my earlier statement is right - ra_dav will be the only
RA implementation with ACL support. ACLs are a feature of the RA
not the underlying repository itself. -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 30 17:20:12 2002