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

Re: [RFC] Paths API (svn_dirent_uri.h) - improvements

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:32:44 -0500

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 17:26, Branko ─îibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 17:07, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 16:26, Branko ─îibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
>>>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>>>>> * The representation of a URL should be always URI-encoded.
>>>>> Yah. That's how we treat them, in general, but having it declared that
>>>>> way would be good. As I noted above, we also want them to *always* be
>>>>> absolute. The codebase is pretty darned close to allowing for that.
>>>>> Also note that the svn_uri_* functions are new in 1.7, so we can
>>>>> define them with this restriction.
>>>> Oh hum. That reminds me of my recent changes in svndumpfilter on this
>>>> very topic. Svnumpfilter uses "repository-absolute" paths, that is,
>>>> paths within the versionable filesystem that always have a leading /.
>>>> Clearly those are not dirents; nor are they relpaths; nor, by your
>>>> definition above, are they URIs to the intent of the svn_uri API.
>>>> They're not URI-encoded, either.
>>>> Which leaves me scratching my head, wondering which of the three
>>>> inapplicable families of functions svndumpfilter should be using.
>>> FS is the odd man out. The leading-slash paths don't fit well with
>>> much of anything.
>>> It would be nice if it used a relpath [from the root].
>> To expand a bit more...
>> Bert and I discussed this a few times. Because it isn't a relpath, and
>> it isn't a dirent, that is why we use the URI functions for FS paths.
>> But once Bert switches on the "must be absolute" bit, then everything
>> will fall over. I dunno what his plan was for the FS (he's been
>> updating stuff throughout the client, wc, and RA layers).
>> We never came up with a good solution. Sigh.
> Why not just drop the must-be-absolute requirement? Those are perfectly
> valid URIs, as per spec, they simply lack the schema and server part.

That's what we have today. But I think it would be good to have less
"oh, but wait. it is tuesday, so that is only relative. not absolute."
... less variability can be quite handy.

That leading slash in the FS is superfluous. It's a constant. rm it, I say.

> (BTW, URI-encoding them internally is going to cause no end of screaming
> horrors. My crystal ball has spoken.)

Bah. Sucker's bet. You can come back and say "I told you so", or
nobody will ever remember you made this statement.


Received on 2009-11-11 23:33:01 CET

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