[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: John Peacock <jpeacock_at_rowman.com>
Date: 2004-11-02 18:24:09 CET

Greg Hudson wrote:

> I don't have a strong opinion either way on repos vs. fs, but if we're
> going to make the decision for that reason, I really really want to see
> a design document for ACLs. Because I am not at all convinced that a
> good implementation of a lock table (which maps pathnames to lock
> tokens, and has no history) shares much in common with a good
> implementation of an acl system (which maps node-revs to access control
> lists, and may want to have history).

Except the argument can be made that locks could be implemented as
temporary ACL's without history and a moving node-rev (if committing
doesn't free locks, since I don't remember where that argument ended, if
it did). If we already had ACL's, we could [quickly] have locks too,
but locking alone isn't going to make is easier to implement ACL's.


John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 2 18:24:05 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.