On 12/7/06, Daniel Rall <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006, David Glasser wrote:
> > Well, actually, 1.4 did allow for a new repository format (to use
> > the compressed svndiff version), but it doesn't require you to
> > upgrade your repository and still allows you to make the old
> > version.
> Dave (Thomas), the repository format hasn't changed (yet) for 1.5. If
> the merge-tracking branch makes it in (which is quite possible), the
> format will change, as we'll probably be including an sqlite index
> alongside the FSFS or BDB data files to track merge history.
Ok. So hopefully if we stick to FSFS, we'll be safe.
If you really need Java hooks, why not use JavaHL to avoid SVNKit's
> constant catch-up?
We needed transaction support... javaSVN/SVNKit seemed to have that, I
didn't see that in javaHL. Good suggestion though. See below:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Phippard <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Hooks written in Java using JavaHL
"Dave_Thomas mailing lists" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote 07:20:29 PM:
> Given a repository and the name/number of a transaction I need to get
> following info to write hooks in java:
> * a list of changed paths
> * the log entry of a transaction
> * ability to get a property of a specific path in a transaction
In my opinion, writing a pre-anything hook in Java is not viable because
of the overhead of starting the JVM. If that is not an issue for you,
then your next problem is that there are no Java API's that can
interrogate transactions, so you'd probably have to contribute that
support to JavaHL yourself. To do it today, you'd have to execute svnlook
from Java which would be pointless.
Note that I am one of the biggest consumers of JavaHL, so it is not like I
am against Java. I actually do some post-xxx hooks using Java. What I
did was I have a Java daemon process that is always running and monitoring
Received on Fri Dec 8 01:50:10 2006