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

Re: FS abstraction and circular dependencies

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2004-05-10 12:01:49 CEST

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 08:13:13AM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Branko ??ibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> > >Personally, I like the idea of a util library. Candidate contents:
> > >
> > > - the node-rev functions
> > > - svn_fs__canonicalize_path()
> > > - the current contents of libsvn_fs_base/util (skel stuffs)
> > >
> > Skels are totally BDB-specific. I don't think any other database
> > backend would want to use them in favour of a rasonably structured
> > schema.
> Skels are not BDB-specific (and yes, I realize that you know this, and
> what you meant when you said the opposite). They could be used by any
> backend that so desires. In fact, they could be used by a different
> BDB implementation if someone is interested in going that route (say,
> the SVN 2.0 schema).

"could be" is very different from "probably". I'm with Branko here: I
don't think any of the other forseeable backends would use skels. Thus,
I'd say to leave them with the BDB implementation unless/until another
backend needs them. At that point, they can migrate.

btw, I don't like the library explosion (it becomes very slow to load and
link all those libs -- just ask the GNOME folks), but libsvn_fs_subr does
seem to be the cleanest approach at the moment.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon May 10 12:03:32 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.