On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 18:51, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> I don't understand this. If we add a new function pointer to the rA
> vtable, then any RA implementation that is done for 1.0 will be
> ABI-incompatible with 1.1. Or isn't the compatibility guarantees about
> ABI?
We don't actually have a mechanism for third-party RA implementations.
(We have a mechanism for dynamic loading, but that's still controlled by
a hardcoded table in libsvn_ra.) So we don't have to worry about that.
We do need to probably bump the libsvn_ra ABI number for 1.1, to provide
a clear error message if someone tries to accidentally load a 1.0 RA
module into a 1.1 set of libraries. The reason is that RA modules have
dependencies, so, for instance, {1.0 built with neon} overlaid with {1.1
built without neon} will result in an inconsistent set of libraries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun May 23 06:15:39 2004