Sounds, then, like you're asking not for extending the set of valid
propnames but for enforcing the existing conventions?
Have a look at svn_repos__validate_prop() --- that's the function that
implements server-side validation of properties. Do you want to just
call svn_prop_name_is_valid() from there?
There are some standard caveats associated with updating this function,
which I've just added to its docstring.
Garret Wilson wrote on Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:08:26 -0800:
> On 1/23/2012 11:50 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> >... The situation is that the low level svn_fs.h API allows
> >property names to be any null-terminated C string. The
> >intermediate svn_ra.h API imposes restrictions because only XML
> >names can be marshalled over http:, I think svn: allows anything.
> >The high level svn_client.h API restricts names to a subset of
> >ASCII and thus avoids passing anything the RA layers cannot
> >handle. You want to relax the svn_client.h API to allow XML names.
> >Strictly speaking I suppose a 3rd party RA implementation might
> >only support the svn_client.h subset, but I don't know of any
> >other RA implementations.
>
> Although I want to relax the restrictions for my own personal
> reasons (i.e. to make my code work over JavaHL with repositories
> with which my code has worked for years over SVN+DAV), what is even
> more important to me is consistency. It makes no sense to me if a
> client has different naming rules based upon the method of access to
> a repository.
>
> So if I'm voted down (I'm just speaking proverbially here---I don't
> even know if I would have "voting rights") on lifting the
> restrictions, I would want to /impose/ restrictions on svn: and
> http:. Everyone should play by the same rules. If the same rules
> would have been in place from the beginning, I wouldn't even /be/ in
> the situation I am now, because at least SVN+DAV would have rejected
> the property names I was using. I had no idea they would stop
> working once I moved to accessing my repository locally using
> JavaHL-based clients.
>
> So yeah, I want to relax the svn_client.h API on what makes a valid
> property name. But even more than that, I want consistency across
> all clients. And even more than that, I want a specification that
> says what the rules are...
>
> Anyway, I don't want to risk over-arguing this. It should be plain
> what I'm asking at this point---someone just let me know if my
> request will be granted.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Garret
Received on 2012-01-24 05:24:32 CET