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

Re: SVNSERVE Tests Failing

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2003-02-02 02:24:17 CET

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Before apply_text, the editor interface worked like plumbing. You could
> take an arbitary driver and plug it into an arbitrary editor, more or
> less. More interestingly, you could insert a connecting pipe between
> driver and editor:
> driver --> [editor --> network --> driver] --> editor
> libsvn_ra_svn/editor.c is such a connecting pipe. So was the XML
> editor, before we got rid of it.
> With apply_text, there is no way to build such a connecting pipe without
> sending full texts over the wire. The receiving end of the connecting
> pipe no longer has enough information to make editing calls.
> I can see why apply_text is appealing. It moves a little bit of code
> from driver to editor, and it lets us avoid deltifying over ra_local for
> free (by omitting code, rather than by adding conditionals). But it
> destroys an important property of the editor interface and, as a result,
> will significantly complicate the ra_svn code if it stands.

Yah. It wasn't just that, it was also that it made it easy to not
deltify for new imports (which we formerly had to do). It also
changes the interface from driver-push (pushing to window handlers,
that is) to editor-pull, although that could probably be accomplished
without changing the input type.

I was aware we were losing this property, but assumed (perhaps rashly)
that it wasn't a real loss, because the driver could reconstruct the
correct stream.

Hmmm. I won't be doing more coding on this before Monday, at which
time I'll be flying out to CA to be in the CollabNet office for a
week, where Greg Stein is. We've been talking a lot about this
change, he's very familiar with it; will ponder and talk with him.
(Not trying to avoid list discussion, it's just that I won't be on the
list again until sometime late Monday or early Tuesday.)

> If absolutely no one else agrees with me, I'll withdraw my veto. I
> think I have a strong argument here, though.

You do. Need to think; I grok the objection, I just don't fully grok
the solution space yet.

I guess the summary of this email is: "Hmmm. Objection understood.
Off to think now." :-)

If we do end up trying to press forward with the change, I will make
sure that ra_svn's editor is the first converted, so that the
complications become apparent as early as possible.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Feb 2 02:54:16 2003

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