-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mathias Weinert wrote:
> Referring to http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-02/0304.shtml Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>> The efficiency implications are major, and the extreme inelegance of
>> forcing the user to essentially do access control in two different ways,
>> just because of details of Subversion's internals, is quite unpleasant.
>> I realized I didn't have anything more productive to say than "This
>> scares me. I won't be involving myself in this feature", and left the
>> message well alone, hoping someone else would have something more useful
>> to say about it.
>
> I agree with you that now as we have per path access control for
> svnserve these hooks aren't as important as they've been. But on
> the other side they could be used for other things like logging,
> preventing people from checking out too much (e. g. root) as
> recently discussed in another thread or blocking certain IP
> addresses.
>
> What exactly do you mean with "The efficiency implications are
> major"? Would the hook significantly slow down things?
Many invocations of it would (as has been mentioned already).
However, of *greater* concern to me is the extreme inelegance of
dividing read-control between two separate hooks. If we implemented
this, I believe it would cause widespread confusion. We should NOT be
exposing the report vs. individual-get implementation detail in this case.
Max.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFEBcZLfFNSmcDyxYARAjb1AKChZFxhljdMKDjFcpOJ1yYZo+qj0gCgyU7k
wywfu5PJNiE0LKt5riodQnQ=
=iuX6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 1 17:07:35 2006