On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Julian Foad wrote:
> Barry Scott wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2004, at 17:00, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> >> you could use the RA layer directly. It is more code, but gives
> >> you more flexibility as well.
> >
> > Its bad enough learning enough to drive the client API. I don't like being
> > forced to learn the RA one as well. This is all to hard. Maybe I just read the
> > files out of the .svn and skip the API's altogether. I don't like the way the
> > path of least code/resistence is to ignore SVN API's. (I already avoid
> > svn_client_cat and reach into the text_base directly.)
>
> I'm sorry that we were pushing you towards ignoring the APIs. It's just that,
> to implement new APIs, somebody has to do the work, and nobody seems to be
> volunteering to do it at the moment.
>
I didn't mean to push anybody from using our APIs, but was just pointing
at a short-term solution.
> > I'm convinced its should be a common need. What will convince you?
> > Can TSVN show properties in its display? If so it needs this
> > as well.
>
> I am now reasonably convinced that we should provide a "depth=1" API to do
> this. If you would like to implement it and send a patch, that would be great.
>
> There was a general move in favour of providing "depth=0", "depth=1" and
> "depth=infinity" for all operations, but so far only a few operations implement
> all three options.
>
FWIW, I also think it's a good idea. If we implement depth = 0 and depth =
1, then it is easy to implement depth = any positive number, so why not go
all the way. It might not be commonly useful, but why have arbitrary
limits that are necessary?
BTW, if we don't have an issue for this API change, would you mind filing
one, Berry?
Regards,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 5 22:37:25 2004