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

Re: When to use Berkeley transactions.

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2003-02-21 17:13:18 CET

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> I don't think the current situation is very clean. It presents the
> possiblities of representations pointing to nonexistent strings and
> strings with no representations pointing to them. It means an extra
> step to remove the old string when the representation is updated. It's
> an extra step on every access.
>
> (I admit that the transition from two tables to one would be pretty
> harsh. I'm just not sure why we designed it this way in the first
> place.)

We didn't. We started out with one table, and added the layer of
indirection because it was easier for us to wrap our brains around
that way. (See changes around 2001-06-26 in the old CVS ChangeLog).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 21 17:47:04 2003

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