[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Subversion Performance Benchmark

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2002-09-24 19:55:33 CEST

cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> GACK! Use this one instead (the previous one launches a new browser window):

Thanks! I've updated


with this text:

Here are the details, from the relevant section of rev 2328 of
notes/STACK. Note that the concerns about editor composition no
longer apply:

   Change #6: Move textdeltas to the "other side" of the editor.
   STATUS: Being discussed on list; holding off on making this change.
   The Way It Works Now:
      The driver of an editor takes a source and target stream, puts them
      together via svn_txdelta() to produce a stream of "windows". The
      driver then pushes these windows at the editor's window-handler.
   Proposed Change:
      Move this process to the other side of the interface, into the
      editor implementation, giving the editor the power to deal with the
      source and target streams directly.
                - remove the editor's apply_txdelta() routine
                - create two new routines:
                   apply_delta (filebaton, [src_stream], target_stream)
                   set_file_contents (filebaton, [src_stream], delta,
                                      enum delta_type)
                   apply_delta() sends svndiff deltas.
                   set_file_contents() can send plain text or other
                It becomes the obligation of the editor implementation to
                implement at least one of these two routines; if one
                routine is NULL, the driver must use the other.
      It's too restrictive to force every editor implementation to accept
      and deal with small svndiff windows. For example: Greg Stein wants
      to send plain text while debugging his commit-editor and network
      layer. It's best to allow the RA layer to make it's own choice
      about how to break up the two streams most efficiently.
      The reason [src_stream] is optional is that it may be NULL; this
      presumably means that the editor already has access to the src
      (Greg and Jim, did I get this explanation totally wrong? My notes
      here aren't perfectly clear. Please elaborate if you need to.)
      Editor composition becomes more difficult if we use streams. A
      window is a discrete chunk of data that can be used by several
      consumers, but streams are different: if consumer A reads some
      data off a stream, then when consumer B reads, she'll get
      different results. You'd have to design your streams in a funky
      way to make this not be a problem.

      In some circumstances, this isn't an issue. After all, usually
      a set of composed editors is a bunch of lightweight editors,
      that don't do much, surrounding a core editor that does the real
      work. For example, an editor that prints out filenames wrapped
      with an editor that actually updates those files. In such
      cases, the lightweight editor simply never reads data off the
      stream, so the core editor is not deprived of anything.

      But other editors (say, a commit guard?) might want to actually
      examine file data. That could have bad consequences if we
      switch from windows to streams.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Sep 24 20:20:25 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.