[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Log Message Templates vs Server->Client Configuration.

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2005-05-18 06:45:50 CEST

On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 21:17 -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 17:32 -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > > Have a generic repos hook called 'inquiry'. It can read its
> > > parameters (the first parameter is always a subcommand) and read
> > > stdin, and depending on the subcommand it may or may not write to
> > > stdout. We define calling disciplines for various subcommands: what
> > > further parameters they take, what if anything to expect on stdin, and
> > > what if anything they can write to stdout.
> >
> > How is this any different from the generic ra_svn command layer, or the
> > ra_dav custom report mechanism?
> Well, we to use the generic ra_svn command layer and the ra_dav custom
> report mechanism to implement this, clearly.

I may have chosen a bad part of the message to quote. My impression is
that you want to add a new RA method and/or protocol request which takes
a subcommand, a subcommand-specific set of inputs, and a
subcommand-specific set of outputs. I don't see how that's better than
just adding new vtable methods.

> Is the question you're asking: "Why one hook, instead of a separate
> hook for each feature?"

That too. A hook script which simply acts as a dispatch layer for
another set of hooks is needless indirection as well.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 18 06:46:56 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.