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

Re: Memory leak with 1.6.x clients

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:30:03 +0100

On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 10:03:06PM +0200, Branko ─îibej wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
> > You also brought up the question of whether we can change
> > svn_io_open_uniquely_named()'s behavior from that currently described
> > by its doc string without revving the API. I tend to think not, the
> > doc string is quite explicit in spelling out what the temp file's
> > names will be...though maybe the language "with a unique name
> > ***based*** on * utf-8 encoded @a filename" gives us some wiggle room,
> > depending on how we interpret "based on".
> >
> I think we would really, really be in need of psychiatric help if we
> constrained ourselves to the predictability of temp file names based on
> some docstring wording. Is anyone of the opinioin that the names of
> temporary files are any kind of external API?

No, but I don't think that matters here.
As I said in another mail, I think the predictable tempfile names
are still useful for tempfiles that users interact with, like log messages.

So I'd say we need both random names (for security and performance)
and predictable names (for user-friendliness) and make use of them

Received on 2009-06-02 17:05:52 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.