Re: [PATCH] libsvn_fs_util: New library to reuse FSFS and BDBfunctions

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-04-04 19:00:43 CEST

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007, C. Michael Pilato wrote:

> Daniel Rall wrote:
> >> I'm actually suprised that the entire locking subsystem isn't shared -
> >> isn't the implementation absolutely identical?
> >
> > If they once were, they seem to have diverged somewhat. It would be
> > nice to share what code we can between'em, though.
>
> Lock implementations are different. One uses flat files in a hashed
> directory (FSFS), the other uses BDB tables.

Would it make sense to share the interface? Or would that add
unnecessary additional complexity?

application/pgp-signature attachment: stored

Received on Wed Apr 4 19:01:10 2007

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Malcolm Rowe: "Re: [PATCH] Implement sharding for FSFS"
Previous message: Malcolm Rowe: "[PATCH] Implement sharding for FSFS"
In reply to: C. Michael Pilato: "Re: [PATCH] libsvn_fs_util: New library to reuse FSFS and BDBfunctions"
Next in thread: C. Michael Pilato: "Re: [PATCH] libsvn_fs_util: New library to reuse FSFS and BDBfunctions"
Reply: C. Michael Pilato: "Re: [PATCH] libsvn_fs_util: New library to reuse FSFS and BDBfunctions"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]