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

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

From: Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:48:15 +0100

On Tue, 2011-06-28, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 01:37 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> > Hi Julian,
> >
> > I hadn't realized using in-out parameters was considered such bad
> > form.
> At a minimum, they force an API divergence in our bindings layers. +1 to
> separate and explicit in and out parameters.

Hi Paul. As you noticed, we do use in-outs sometimes, at least
privately, so it's not always considered such bad form, but in this case
it looks like using separate params would be better for at least a
couple of reasons. I wasn't even aware of the bindings issue.

> > If we need to change this, then your second alternative, splitting
> > the parameter into two, seems the more straightforward option.
> > I'm happy to make the change if that is what we want.


I will just ask once more: as a matter of principle, are we comfortable
it's OK to provide only an indication that "the server did in fact do
this for you this time", but not to have a way of finding out in general
whether the server is capable of doing this?

- Julian
Received on 2011-06-29 10:49:13 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.