Re: FS abstraction, for real this time

On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 04:55:55PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> 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. If the loader supports
> dynamic linking, then a binary packager can split up the FS back ends
> into separate packages so that the main Subversion package doesn't
> depend on BDB, just as the Mandrake packages currently do with the RA
> layers in order to avoid having the main Subversion package depend on
> Apache. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.

You mean to avoid depdencies on berkeley db and neon...
The DSO for the Apache modules (which also end up in separate packages)
avoid an Apache dependency, but that's a different example.

At any rate I strongly support this. It makes my life so much easier.

-- 
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org