Re: permanent solution for deltification problem (issue #1601)

mark benedetto king <mbk@lowlatency.com> writes:
> I agree that your proposal is more efficient in the APR_HAS_FORK
> case, but there are a few potential drawbacks that I'd like to point
> out:
>
> 1.) Trivial duplication of code between svnadmin's subcommand_deltify().
> One might say that this is "tight coupling", and that we should
> keep the system "modular".

The code duplication should be very minimal. The under-the-hood
interface is the same.

> 2.) Increased complexity of implementation.

Again, minimal (if it turns out not to be minimal, then I'll happily
go the other way).

> 3.) This is just FUD, but there may be some gotchas associated with
> forked BDB access that would not appear if the deltify happened in
> a brand-new process.

This is just FUD :-).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 3 00:52:28 2003