Re: svn commit: r11750 - branches/locking/subversion/include

On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:54, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> I suspect Branko is probably right, that we will one day need an
> opaque type instead of a 'char *'. That doesn't seem like a very
> risky projection.

Actually, I'm coming to the conclusion that it makes no sense. Are we
really going to have a bunch of ACLs in the FS referring to a group
database outside the FS? If two different callers use different group
databases, they'll get different permission behavior?

Maybe there's something I don't understand about the DAV ACL spec, but
that seems bizarre.

But this is precisely the kind of question we *shouldn't* be deciding
now, because we're solving locks, not ACLs, and we shouldn't make a
simple problem hard by tying it into a hard problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 5 19:13:06 2004