[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 03:24:02 CEST

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

> If you put a vtable right at the svn_fs.h level, then every single
> filesystem would have to re-implement tree.c. That's a big hunk of
> code that is very error prone.

I can't say that that reason alone is especially interesting to me.
What do we do when someone else comes along and says they want to
write libsvn_fs_gofigure(), and they have no use at all for any of the
tree.c code? Our public API doesn't require that there even *be* a
DAG subsystem -- this is an implementation detail of our initial
shot at a versioning filesystem library.

I think the thing to do here is to put the abstraction layer
immediately below the existing svn_fs.h. Remember, if someone doesn't
want to re-write the tree.c code, they can do *exactly* what you plan
to do with libsvn_fs_fs -- copy libsvn_fs.

In fact, I'm surprised that you guys haven't just literally 'svn copy
libsvn_fs libsvn_fs_fs' and then re-added all the docs you've put in.

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


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 9 03:27:48 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.