[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 18:48:49 CET

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

> >> 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.
> >
> > 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).
>
> We should probably start another thread to discuss this, but I'd much
> prefer to see the lock table implemented as a DAG.

Let's please *not* have this discussion.

I think I'm realizing now that when I used the phrase "consumed
(implementation-wise", some folks read that as my belief that these
two features will have the same basic implementation. That's not what
I meant. I meant that once we have ACLs, I see us gutting out our
implementation of locks and re-implementing them as a subset of ACLs.
Probably a poor choice of words on my part. And of course, I could be
completely off-base in that prediction, all of which is fine. But
there's no need to have that discussion right now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 2 18:51:49 2004

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