Re: FS abstraction, for real this time

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:

> Since Josh and I (mostly Josh) now have a fully armed and operational
> FSFS implementation, we'd like to implement the FSAP abstraction part
> of gat's document
> (http://www.cdrguys.com/subversion/htmlPluggable/Pluggable3.htm; focus
> on Appendix C and ignore types with "_bl_" in the name) so that it can
> live in the same executable as the BDB implementation.

Yay!

> Although it would be possible to implement all of this inside one big
> happy library, I'm thinking that three separate libraries (loader,
> baseline, FSFS) is probably the right answer.

Yes.

> (In case anyone is wondering what happened to the "maybe we should
> abstract at the DAG layer instead of at the API layer" thread, I think
> Josh wound up making enough changes to the tree.c functions that such
> an abstraction doesn't really make sense.)

I was, indeed, wondering what happened to this thread -- thanks for
clarifying.

Sorry I'm too busy drowning in other tasks to help out. But if you
have questions, feel free to hit me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 28 16:39:00 2004