Quoting Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>:
> On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 21:19, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > >I don't think I can reuse much of an implementation that maps FS
> > >concepts to DB concepts. Though there may be some stuff that can
> be
> > >factored out, particularly in the realm of auto-merging.
>
> > And probably the DAG abstraction, too. Maybe the API vtable should be
> at
> > the DAG layer, not the public FS layer.
>
> Does this count as a drive-by proposal?
>
> For one thing, I can't tell what you mean. Sentence one suggests I
> could reuse the code in dag.c (which I doubt), and sentence two suggests
> we should put the abstraction barrier at a level which allows multiple
> different implementations of dag.c (which I also doubt; tree.c appears
> to rely on the concept of transactions).
I was a bit schisophrenic, wasn't I? Stream-of-consciousness thingy. :-)
What I meant was that it would be nice if all FS implementations could reuse the
DAG logic, and that the easiest way to do that might be to move the vtable below
the dag.c level rather than below the tree.c level.
No, I haven't the faintest idea how hard (easy?) that would be.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 1 16:10:29 2004