On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 05:47:42PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Compile-time option sounds good.
>
> The naming thing is a bit wierd... after all, they're both DAV. We
> just didn't call the first one libsvn_ra_neon :-).
>
> Is there any way to put both serf and neon implementations separately
> inside libsvn_ra_dav/? I'm not proposing that we mix the code, just
> that we keep the names reflective of the actual situation.
I don't think so. Other than having #ifdef's or introducing a
libsvn_ra_dav meta-API that both serf and neon can hook in to that
mimics the RA layer for all intents and purposes, I don't see how it'd
work. Serf and neon have a similar purpose, but view the world very
differently - therefore, I think it's best to keep the code as separate
as possible.
The RA layer is exactly intended to allow for this type of flexibility -
so I think we'd be working 'against' the RA layer if we tried to be too
cute. By and large, my opinion is the ra name means very little. I
don't think users would really care if we add an ra_serf as long as it
handles http and https. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 28 02:22:08 2005