Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 10:45, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
>
>>>Any reason you're calling it 'libsvn_fs_baseline' instead of
>>>'libsvn_fs_bdb' or something else that indicates it uses berkeley db?
>>
>>Because, there will be other DB backends using the same abstraction.
>>The "inner vtable", will allow other DB backends to be used within the
>>current FS implementation.
>>I don't believe Greg is working on that part. He's focussing on the
>>outer abstraction. Right Greg?
>
>
> Correct.
Well, I don't know if I particularly like building infrastructure for
theoretical new backends for the fs library, but hey, I'm not the one
doing the work.
I'd also say that 'libsvn_fs_base' would be nicer than
'libsvn_fs_baseline', to stress that it's a sort of 'base class' for
other db based implementations to extend. I'm not sure what exactly
'baseline' indicated to me when I first saw it, but it wasn't that.
> My initial plan was that you'd set "fsap-name" in the fs_config passed
> to svn_fs_new if you wanted svn_fs_create() to use anything other the
> baseline FSAP, and then (in the future) you'd set "fsp-name" if you
> wanted the baseline FSAP to use anything other than the BDB FSP. I
> recently changed the first part so that you just pass an fsap_name
> parameter to the new svn_fs_create() function, but the baseline FSAP
> will still probably have to use the fs_config parameter to choose
> between FSPs, since there's no other way to get a parameter down to that
> level.
makes sense.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 26 22:02:25 2004