> From: Jon Watte [mailto:svn-dev-0209@mindcontrol.org]
>
>
> > Bill has raised a valid point, a single callback/baton is OK as a
> > simple async-signal handling mechanism, but as a general
cancellation
> > mechanism it's a poor solution.
>
> It seems that any threaded implementation can just use thread-local
> storage of one for or another for its per-running-operation needs.
> Thus I think the interface as specified is sufficiently powerful.
> This is assuming that the same THREAD will only run one SVN operation
> at a time, which seems reasonable.
>
> The logical extension if you wanted more expressive power is for SVN
> to use thread-local storage to store the user context, but that seems
> rather more effort than it's worth.
>
If memory serves, thread-local storage isn't nearly as efficient as you
might think on all OSs. It certainly is very efficient on Windows.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Sep 18 23:36:14 2002