[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: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:37:35 +0100

On 24.12.2011 23:03, schamel23_at_spinor.com 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,
> It is a very, very, very broken design if a library can abort.
> Even "only" crashing a plugin is not acceptable.

It's not a matter of design. I agree that abort-like constructs are
being abused in the libraries, and that's an implementation issue, not a
design issue. But no design in the world is going to avoid external
circumstances. There are always going to be cases where you have to
decide between aborting, or risking data corruption (or worse). Which
would you pick?

-- Brane
Received on 2011-12-25 06:38:14 CET

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