Wow, what a big discussion on this topic.
I would like to suggest that the URL format for SVN to be followed is
to be the same format for LDAP URIs.
The format of the URI used in the famous open source Apache Web Server
is really good.
Here is an example LDAP URL:
ldap://ldap.apache.org/
dc=apache,dc=org?uid?sub?(&(objectClass=person)(objectclass=posixAccount
))
I recommend this not only because it would work, but because SVN could
then do filtering at the URL level.
Here is my suggested URL example format:
http://svn.apache.org/svn/repository/file/path/
?rev?(&(author=rglaue)(extension=.java))
I don't even know how useful this (file filtering) might be.
Regardless, the URI format for LDAP is already invented, developed,
documented and proven to work (proven to work for LDAP that is). Why
not borrow the URI format. Maybe even modify the URI format a little
to account for other subversion data.
It might be nice to connect to a LARGE subversion repository and only
see the files I authored; using the following URL:
http://svn.myHost.org/svn/myRepository/trunk/?4634?(author=rglaue)
Or see all the files in the repository for revision of 2934 using the
following URL:
http://svn.myHost.org/svn/myRepository/trunk/?2934
Maybe someone already suggested this in the last 100+ e-mails on this
topic, but it is my suggestion of what should be used.
-RG
On Monday, Aug 4, 2003, at 16:46 America/Chicago, kfogel@collab.net
wrote:
> [I've changed the name of this thread, so people will know what it's
> about.]
>
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
>>>> and the URL syntax it invents is bogus
>>>> (/repos/svn/trunk/README may be a completely different resource
>>>> at two different revs).
>>
>> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 15:49, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>>> (I'm not sure I understand the problem behind Greg's
>>> last objection, but I'm sure he can explain it in more detail).
>>
>> We've talked about inventing a public URL syntax which includes a
>> revision number, and we ruled out using ?rev=revnum. See
>> <http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2003-06/0024.shtml>.
>
> Thanks for tracking that down.
>
> Well, we'll need *some* syntax for naming a path at a particular
> revision. I'm okay with the "path@rev" syntax the command line client
> has been using. It makes the class ".*@[0-9]+$" unavailable for
> paths, but a similar objection would apply to any other character.
>
> However, I have this feeling in the back of my mind that we've always
> been somewhat tentative about the '@' syntax... Why is that? Am I
> imagining things? Are we now ready to proclaim it the Official Way to
> specify a revision in a Subversion URL?
>
> Note that currently only the client interprets that syntax. If it's
> going to be used by other applications (such as KDE), we'll need to
> make the server aware of it as well. I don't see any reason why that
> would be hard, but maybe I just haven't thought it through enough? :-)
>
> -Karl
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 13 00:52:59 2003