Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2004, at 1:50 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
>> You're one offering plate short of being a great preacher. +1 on
>> allll of this.
>>
>
> Well, I haven't got a proposal to rip out compatibility checks (yet).
> I'd like to give proponents of the system a chance to defend it first.
We have strict API (and ABI) compatibility rulesThe version checking
code simply ensures that we follow them. Nobody objected when I added
those checks to the FS loader, and whatever others say, one of the
arguments for having an FS loader in the first place was to let people
write their own FS modules. Therefore that interface is public.
If you want to take the version checks out, fine, but then you'll have
to make the interfaces private, and that includes double underscores in
the function and variable names. And if you do that, you'll be violating
our compatibility guarantees, which IMHO we should stick to as long as
we have them. Or we can throw those out too, and remove a bunch of
versioned functions, which will make our code much cleaner.
But first, you'd better explain what's so horribly wrong with the
exieting FS vtable that you have to completely rewrite it. I've noticed
before that a bit of imagination usually make many an "inevitable" thing
not so inevitable, so share these little design issues with us first,
please.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 4 12:16:34 2004