Re: Locking server implementation: libsvn_repos or libsvn_fs

"Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fitz@collab.net> writes:

> On Oct 29, 2004, at 4:17 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> > It seems like most of the smaller issues have dropped out of this
> > thread. Allow me to oversimplify.
> >
> > * The remaining 'big' argument for locks-in-fs is "it's more
> > convenient for
> > callers."
> >
> > * The remaining big argument for locks-in-repos is "it's easier to
> > implement".
>
> Sorry to jump in so late here, but I haven't seen anyone bring up
> gstein's big argument against locks-in-repos, namely that programs
> that directly access the fs will circumvent any locks that are
> in-place (e.g. SubWiki).

Yeah, that bugs me too.

To be honest, I think I'm settling into the locks-in-fs camp, if only
because I see them as being consumed (implementation-wise, if not
UI-wise as well) by ACLs eventually, which I think no one debates
should live in the FS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 2 17:59:18 2004