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

Re: Locking server implementation: libsvn_repos or libsvn_fs

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-10-30 16:49:28 CEST

Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:

> > * Everyone wants to implement the lock-table (or tree) without using a
> > database, regardless of whether we do locks-in-fs or locks-in-repos.
> How did you reach that conclusion? IMHO if we put locks in the FS,
> it's the back-end's choice where to put the locks. I can't imagine the
> BDB back-end _not_ putting locks into a BDB table.

Yeh, that particular "oversimplification" is a bit of a leap. If
locks wind up in the FS layer, the BDB implementation will use a BDB

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 30 16:52:01 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.