[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: 2004-11-02 18:33:41 CET

John Peacock <jpeacock@rowman.com> writes:

> > 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.

And that's exactly what I was thinking when I said that. Nobody
disputes that ACLs belong in the filesystem layer. And I believe that
locks are just really limited ACLs.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 2 18:36:23 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.