On 4/7/06, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> > And I also worry about that. I'm kind of curious how noticable things
> > would be tough. I mean it wouldn't actually be EVERY read request,
> > just the significant reports really, but still. I think it's worth
> > prototyping and benchmarking though, just to see if it's actually
> > noticable.
>
> Sure, but I'm thinking of the implications of a hook script on the
> update report more than I am about the replay report. You'd have to
> execute the hook on every path in the update report to see whether it
> is allowed or not (passing all paths on the command-line would
> overwhelm some OS limits on number of arguments). It's essentially
> another form of authz with the same 'check every path' semantics.
Well, we don't have to execute the hook for each path, we could send
them in on stdin or something like that. Or perhaps a subset of the
information could be useful. I mean for checkouts or exports the
important thing is the source path, you don't really have anything
else. Do we really NEED every path passed to the reporter to make a
useful decision?
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 8 06:06:58 2006