On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:23:37AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> >Once again: Subversion is scriptable by design (it's even mentioned on
> >our front page).
> >
> >I honestly don't have much CVS experience, so I don't know specifically
> >what problems you're referring to above.
> >
> >Could you explain a bit more about what kinds of problems 'dumb wrapper
> >scripts' have caused for CVS (or users of CVS)? At the moment, I'm
> >struggling to see why you're against this change.
>
> If someone wants to write a complicated layer on top of Subversion
> that depends on output streamability and parseability, they should be
> using the bindings. -- justin
>
Why?
Again: it's listed as a design goal.
Why is it wrong per se to script the client and parse the results?
And by the way, I don't think anyone has quantified the complexity of
the wrapper at any point. It could be trivial - I certainly have a fair
few trivial scripts that parse the results of (for example) 'svn st'.
They don't need flushes because they don't go to the console, but I
don't see a great deal of difference between what I'm doing and what
you're disparaging.
Regards,
Malcolm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 5 20:42:51 2006