On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:22, Hyrum K. Wright
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> count-progress.py is reporting 143 uses of svn_wc__node_* in my
>> working copy. A quick breakdown of these calls results in:
>> 8 node_get_base_rev
>> 9 node_get_changed_info
>> 1 node_get_changelist
>> 5 node_get_children
>> 2 node_get_commit_base_rev
>> 6 node_get_copyfrom_info
>> 2 node_get_depth
>> 33 node_get_kind
>> 2 node_get_lock_token
>> 10 node_get_repos_info
>> 23 node_get_url
>> 7 node_is_added
>> 3 node_is_file_external
>> 1 node_is_replaced
>> 1 node_is_status_absent
>> 9 node_is_status_deleted
>> 3 node_is_status_obstructed
>> 1 node_is_status_present
>> 12 node_walk_children
>> We are 14 entry_t uses away from "done" in libsvn_client. That means
>> the above calls are pretty close to the end-result.
>> The get_kind is quite believable, and should probably move to our
>> public API. Seems quite reasonable, along with Neels' changes to
>> create better consistency in its outputs.
>> The get_url concerns me a bit, since most states of a node don't
>> actually have a URL. They may have an *intended* URL after a commit.
>> I'm somewhat worried those get_url calls are mis-using or do not
>> properly understand the "this node doesn't have a URL" concept.
>> get_repos_info kind of falls into this area, too.
>> The walk_children is pretty obvious, and I definitely think we should
>> have such an API in our public header. In particular, provide that API
>> to users rather than specialized walk/editor mechanisms, and let
>> callers request the specific information they need.
> Thanks for the analysis. When we do move these APIs to the public space,
> what's the plan for naming them? svn_wc_node_* ?
No plan yet. And I think "node" is awful in there :-P
svn_wc_walk_tree (my preference) or svn_wc_walk_children.
svn_wc_get_kind, or maybe svn_wc_read_kind
I'd be fine with the above two calls RSN. get_kind() is very much
known (lose the SHOW_HIDDEN param tho! assume TRUE; thus callers with
show_hidden=FALSE need to use a private API). The walk API won't be as
solid, but getting something on deck would be fine, IMO. As I said
above, I think we need some kind of a walk API. I'd probably want
something like walk_unversioned on it, too. Callback is probably not
much more than a path, and let the callback fetch what else it wants.
Received on 2010-04-27 15:33:21 CEST