Re: request for comments from developers about issues 1004 and 901

"SteveKing" <steveking@gmx.ch> writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kfogel@collab.net>
>
>
> > "SteveKing" <steveking@tigris.org> writes:
> > > Yes. The existing notify callback is always called _after_ the operation
> > > on an item (file) is completed. Also, it is defined as a notification
> about
> > > changes in the working copy.
> >
> > ? It's a function. We can call it whenever we want; that's what
> > they're for :-). The interface might need to change, that's normal.
>
> I just wanted a new callback so that existing code doesn't need
> to be changed.

In other words, you want to do the least amount of work. :-)

But IMO, that's not a very compelling argument against Philip's
suggestion. I think the notification function could be vastly
improved by folding in the functionality you want. Yes, it's more
work, but it results in better overall code design.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 12 18:33:42 2003