Branko Èibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote on 06/25/2004 12:23:43 PM:
>
> All in all, I suggest you take time to learn about the Subversion
> architecture and design (there are design docs in our repository, and
> there's the Subversion book which describes some of that). Right now I
> think you're working on assumptions that seem to be mostly wrong -- the
> first one being that SVN and CVS are comparable. They're not, except in
> terms of the usage model, which is the least of your worries.
>
I would just add to all of what has already been said, that to my
knowledge, CVS was never designed to provide an "API Library" that could
be used by other bindings and tools. That is why everything with CVS
seems to windup being somewhat of a "hacked" reinvention with subtle
differences that manifest themselves from time to time.
With Subversion this is different, it was designed as an API with language
bindings and compatability in mind and these binding are actively
developed and used in other projects. There is no reason to start with
the assumption that the existing bindings do not meet your needs or cannot
be adapted to meet your needs. Attempting to re-invent the Subversion
client and then keep it in synch is a fools-mission. It would be better
to use your obvious talents to make the existing javahl bindings that much
better.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 25 19:15:17 2004