Re: API issues we might want to solve for 1.0

On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 15:04, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > So I'm thinking, maybe we don't need an svn_ra_init_ra_libs. What do
> > other people think?
>
> In other words, svn_ra_get_ra_library() would just do internally
> whatever it is that svn_ra_init_ra_libs() does right now, so that
> svn_ra_get_ra_library() wouldn't need to take the baton argument at
> all?

Right.

> What is the exception in 'svn switch --relocate'?

It calls svn_ra_init_ra_libs(), assigns the result to a baton field, and
uses the baton in the validator function. See relocate.c, not
switch.c. I'm not entirely sure how often the validator gets called,
but since it has to open an RA session, the cost of the initialization
pales in comparison to the other work it has to do.

> There does seem to be a bit of an exception in libsvn_client/diff.c

I missed that. So, two exceptions. Still, the logic holds: if you're
opening an RA session, that's going to be more work that initializing a
table. (And also more work than dynamically loading some libraries, if
the the future ever brings us to dynamically loaded ra libraries.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 15 22:42:54 2003