[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: Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fitz_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-11-02 18:48:32 CET

On Nov 2, 2004, at 11:19 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:

> "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fitz@collab.net> writes:
>
>>> Then they will also circumvent hooks, won't they?
>>
>> Yes. And that's really the big thing that Bugs Me. Hooks will be in
>> the repos layer, and if we implement locking policy via hooks, how
>> could we possible call the hooks from the fs layer? And the thought
>> of wrapping every fs call in a repos call makes me kind of ill.
>
> But that's the point of the repos layer. To be a wrapper for the FS
> layer. In fact, there was a time when our auth mechanisms was going
> to be entirely hook-driven, which would have meant literally wrapping
> every FS call with a repos one.

True, but that's not what we're doing right now, is it? The commit
editor provides direct calls into the fs and not wrapped calls. We can
change it to wrap all the fs calls, but is it worth it?

> As it stands with locking, we're
> talking about probably only three functions (lock, unlock, and
> is_locked), right?

Yes. And as ghudson pointed out, we can still get the locking
functionality by implementing it in the appropriate "sentinel"
functions like svn_repos_fs_commit_txn.

-Fitz

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 2 18:49:03 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.