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

Re: svn commit: r1222522 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS

From: Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:57:06 +0100

On 24.12.2011 16:50, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 24.12.2011 11:54, Stefan Küng wrote:
>> maybe you have a 10GHz machine on your hands. But most people don't.
>> Using RPC for every svn API call would bring every machine down easily.
> Oh come now. We're not talking about some Enterprise XYZ RPC thingamabob
> that does everything through a distributed transaction manager. Local
> IPC-based RPC isn't all that slow. But that's beside the point.
> My point is that (a) there are alternatives, and (b) there is no way
> under the sun to make the Subversion libraries 100% crash-safe, so if
> you need to protect your plugin environment from crashes, splitting off
> the "unstable" code into a separate daemon process is a fairly standard
> method for doing that.

1) I'm already using a separate process where appropriate
2) when did I ever request a 100% crash-safe lib? All I ever asked was
to not crash when it can be clearly avoided (an assert implies that you
_know_ something is wrong and you could back out without taking the
process down with you)
3) why am I still replying to this thread? maybe you're right and I'm
already insane.
Received on 2011-12-24 16:57:46 CET

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