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

Re: Adding LAN support to Subversion - Clarification

From: Files <files_at_poetryunlimited.com>
Date: 2003-10-28 21:53:44 CET

Blocking mode connections are synchronous.

Non-blocking mode connections are asynchronous.

If we establish that the default subversion protocol is non-blocking, it would
suggest that it was asynchronous in that it does not hold up other requests
from being processed.

Thus a locking/blocking protocol would be by analogy, a synchronous protocol.

Using that logic, what do you all think about:

sync+file://.... for the blocking lock file protected file protocol?

Where the assumption is that the normal file://... is a tacit async+file://....

I don't know whether it would be useful to accept an async+file:// schema -
personally, I doubt it.


Shamim Islam
Benjamin Pflugmann said:
> Hi.
> On Tue 2003-10-28 at 14:57:01 -0500, Files wrote:
>> I know lock sounds strange but it does indicate what the protocol does. But
>> inherently it *is* still a file protocol.
> Well, IIRC, for svn over SSH we have "svn+ssh://". So how about
> "file+lock://" or "file+serial://" in order to say that is the file
> protocol "with locking" resp. "not parallel"? Well, you get the idea,
> maybe someone can come up with an expression that better says that
> concurrent accesses will be blocked.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 28 21:54:51 2003

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.