Re: Enforce canonical paths in client-server protocol?

On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 12:31, Julian Foad wrote:
> What I'm saying is all a consequence of my opinion that we should enforce
> protocols strictly.

As a general rule, I agree.

But in this specific instance, I don't see any value in going to
additional effort (and perhaps breaking clients) to strictly enforce
canonical paths. I cannot imagine extending the protocol using
non-canonical path elements (especially since we could not extend the
command-line client syntax in the same way, since non-canonical paths
already have a defined meaning to the command-line client); we simply
have too many other well-defined, good mechanisms for extending our
protocols.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jan 16 18:38:24 2005