"Ich Selbst" <ichselbst@gmx.ch> writes:
> ok, seems I'm not up to date :)
> No need to insert my name for that - I actually did nothing but suggesting
> what obviously was already done.
Oh, it wasn't already done, I did it in response to your mail :-).
> >I think an svn_initialize() would make sense when it would do more
> >than just wrap apr_initialize(). But right now, that's all it would
> >do; the body of the function would literally be one line long.
>
> Yes, right now it would be one line long. But think about the
> possibility that subversion one day needs more libraries which
> also need initialization. Then the subversion API wouldn't need
> to change and probably clients would also not necessarily need
> a change...
True, though if that day doesn't arrive before 1.0, I have doubts it
will ever arrive... However, if you want to work up a patch, that
would be great. 'svn_initialize' is great, but I'd say put it in
svn_pools.h, since there's no other obvious place for it, and it at
least has something to do with pools. And patch the HACKING file as
well, of course.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 11 21:25:45 2002