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

Re: FSFS: Plan of attack

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-04-09 02:41:54 CEST

Josh Pieper <jpieper@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> This would be the top level abstraction, i.e. implementing a tree
> structured filesystem on top of the DAG. There would still be a
> need for another abstraction for different database backends.

Have we reached consensus on whether the top-most FS abstraction would
be immediately below svn_fs.h or immediately above dag.h? If the
answer is, "Yes, immediately above dag.h", then the answer is false,
because I think that the svn_fs.h should be converted to mostly one
(or two) big fat vtables and some init functions. If people want to
rewrite filesystem libraries, let 'em rewrite the whole thing, because
next week someone else is going to come along and want the abstraction
moved up a little higher.

> So my proposal is to create a branch, say called
> 'libsvn_fs_fs_abstraction' where this prototype implementation of
> libsvn_fs_fs can live. Once we have it (or during the process of
> creating it), we decide on a good abstraction layer, then
> libsvn_fs_fs can be re-implemented to meet that abstraction.

As Karl noted in his reply, there's no reason to branch unless you
know you'll be conflicting with other libsvn_fs_fs work.

If I'm understanding your proposal correctly, none of this involves
changing a single line of code in libsvn_fs, right?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 9 02:45:38 2004

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.