Re: [RFC/PATCH] Revamping ra_svn tunnel agents

On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:31:31AM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
> > So from a technical perspective, I'm not really sure which is
> > better: my patch, with the libsvn_ra hack to allow "+foo" suffixes
> > in URL schemes, or your suggestion, which plays with the URL syntax.
>
> mbk weighed in in favor of svn:scheme: over IRC, and I don't have a
> strong opinion, so it's currently 2 to 0 for svn:scheme:. So if you
> had your heart set on svn+scheme:, speak up soon or suffer the agony
> of witnessing an improperly painted bikeshed.
>
> (It seems there is a certain amount of precedent for foo:bar: schemes
> in jdbc:, though it sounds like that whole URL scheme is pretty
> dubious.)

Well, "foo:bar" simply isn't a valid URL scheme in isolation, of course.

I do find it strange that we could have a scheme where both the common
Internet scheme syntax (RFC 1738) and a different scheme syntax were
valid, i.e. svn://host/path and svn:ssh://host/path. And, if you're
going to do the latter, the second : is really unnecessary. So I think I
would find svn+ssh less confusing from the point of view of working out
what URLs really mean.

(Not that I actually have a vote or anything.)

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org