Re: SWIG client bindings and auth_baton

cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> I've look at it briefly. I was a little disappointed that you
> combined your -noproxy stuff with a change that removed the remapping
> of svn_fs_FUNCTION_NAME to fs.FUNCTION_NAME (instead of
> fs.svn_fs_FUNCTION_NAME).

I actually *was* doing one thing at a time. Since SWIG doesn't do any
renaming by default, it was using the functions names from the C header
files which *do* contain the svn_fs_ prefix.

> Not sure I like that, though I agree that consistency is best.

Really, I find the getattr hack in fs.py ugly and repelling.

> My suggestion is to take this one task at a time -- do the -noproxy
> stuff first, and meanwhile we as a community should decide which way
> to go with the naming thing.

As I said, I did one thing at a time. Going back to the old naming in
the fs module would be doing *two* things ;) And why should we do
renaming in the first place before having discussed how to rename symbols?

> (While I like the shorter names, I think it'll come back to bite us
> as long as we continue to combine multiple svn interfaces into a
> single Python module -- take the 'util' module for example).

Well, you answered this question already: IMO we should have one python
module for every header file.

Phil

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon May 12 20:31:55 2003