Blair Zajac wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Blair Zajac wrote:
>>> Why is svn_repos_deleted_rev is in svn_repos.h and not in svn_fs.h?
>>> This is new in 1.5, so we could move it still.
>>> It's the natural place I would look for that method, instead of
>>> In fact, there's lots of interesting methods there that look like they
>>> belong in svn_fs.h, not that we would move them now? They take
>>> svn_fs_t, not svn_repos_t.
>>> What's the distinction between a method appearing in svn_fs.h and
>> Methods appear in svn_fs.h when their implementations live in libsvn_fs,
>> libsvn_fs_fs_, and libsvn_fs_base. These libraries deal strictly with
>> versioned filesystem implementation. No hooks, no authz logic -- nothing
>> that the repository layer adds on.
>> Methods appear in svn_repos.h when their implementations live in
>> So, the general rule here is, drop your function in the deepest layer
>> makes sense.
> I guess there's a couple of ways to look at it:
> If the implementation could be based on the public svn_fs.h API, then
> keep it in svn_repos.h. This keeps svn_fs.h light
> If the arguments only take svn_fs_t and not a svn_repos_t, then it
> belongs in svn_fs_t.
> Looking at some of the methods in svn_repos.h, the first thing they do
> is get the svn_fs_t from the svn_repos_t and operate on that, so that
> would seem to imply to move it into svn_fs.h.
>> FWIW, I agree that svn_repos_deleted_rev should be svn_fs_deleted_rev().
> I'll move it.
Upon further consideration of where to add svn_repos_deleted_rev to svn_fs.h and
looking at its implementation, which appears to use only the public svn_fs.h
API, I think I'll leave svn_repos_deleted_rev in svn_repos.h to keep svn_fs.h as
light as possible.
svn_fs.h would become much messier if all our handy "figure something out from
the filesystem" methods were to end up in there.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Wed Aug 1 16:36:54 2007