[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: <schamel23_at_spinor.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 23:03:58 +0100

> 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,

It is a very, very, very broken design if a library can abort.
Even "only" crashing a plugin is not acceptable. (*)

(*) Of course there may be the practical problem of too much work
to fix this. Stefan understands this, as long as he has the feeling
that you at least try to get low hanging fruits by avoiding abort
where they can be avoided easily.
And that for example every new API function supports return an error:
It may be too hard to fix an old design bug,
but you should at least avoid it in the future as much as possible.

> 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.
> -- Brane
Received on 2011-12-24 23:04:30 CET

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