Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>So, if no one has any good reasons, I'd like to use the first approach
>>>above, keeping compability between 1.1 and 1.2. Any objections?
>>>
>>>
>>No objection here.
>>
>>We're making this change to enhance the user experience. I might be
>>missing something, but I see no gain in switching our internal storage
>>format (and the promises of all our interfaces), especially if we have
>>to convert back just to use the one protocol that actually demands
>>URLs (HTTP).
>>
>>
>>
>That was a good way of expressing it:-)
>
>I am going for the way I proposed...
>
>
I'd like to propose that for 2.0, we _do_ change our internal format to
IRI and let the RA layer handle any conversions. The reason is simple:
there are other clients apart from the command-line client that don't
use svn_opt_args_to_target_array. As it stands for 1.0, these clients
will have to reimplement (or copy our implementation of) IRI->URI
translation, which seems like a bit of a pain.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jul 21 17:12:13 2004