Re: Locking server implementation: libsvn_repos or libsvn_fs

On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:33, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> 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.

I think there are a lot of pitfalls to thinking about locks as limited
ACLs.

In some environments, locks will be a day-to-day thing, while ACL
changes will be rare. You want to be able to view the history of ACL
changes, but if locks and unlocks are part of that history, it will be
hard to see what's going on.

If I query whether I have permission to change a file, "no" is a very
different answer from "yes, except Bob has it locked."

The ACL system should determine who has the ability to break locks and
to steal locks. But that's a very different operation from having
permission to change the acl arbitrarily.

My hunch is that, by the time we've avoided all of these pitfalls, locks
in the ACL table will feel like a completely irrelevant wart, not an
elegant special case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 2 19:05:14 2004