[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: changelist feature -- keep it? tweak it? scrap it?

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-01-23 22:07:39 CET

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Karl Fogel wrote:

> On 1/17/07, Jonathan Gilbert <o2w9gs702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >Why not change the current API, which does "set changelist for file X to
> >Y", into two functions: "add file X to changelist Y" and "remove file X
> >from changelist Y"? The current implementation would simply return an error
> >when trying to add a file that is already in one changelist to another one,
> >but it leaves the door open for changes to the way the data is actually
> >stored.
> >
> >Similarly, while certain operations naturally strobe all of the files
> >anyway as part of their normal processing and thus have virtually no
> >overhead in asking each file X if it is a part of changelist Y, it's
> >certainly true that some operations would like to be able to enumerate the
> >files specific to a changelist as quickly as possible. If a function is
> >added to the API to "list all files that are part of changelist Y", it can
> >be initially implemented as a recursive scan, the way it currently has to
> >be done anyway, but then applications that are built using it will
> >automatically experience a performance gain if/when the database structure
> >is reworked.
> >
> >By designing the API carefully, the back-end implementation details can be
> >completely masked, and the door kept open for changing the implementation
> >to better support the end goal feature set. Isn't that one of the main
> >goals of putting implementation into a library? :-) (the other one being
> >reusability)
> I think Jonathan's recommendation is the best course at this point. Let's
> rework the API as though we had an ideal database-ish interface for
> storing changelist information, and (for now) just implement that API
> in libsvn_wc in a somewhat non-optimal way. Unfortunately, when I
> say "Let's", I really mean "Someone else please" :-)... I'd like to
> concentrate
> on sparse directories for now. I will, however, watch the new API if
> someone does this, and make any comments up front instead of months
> later.

I favor this approach too. +1

  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue Jan 23 22:07:55 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.