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

RE: Third-party provider funcs in our API: did we expose too much?

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:33:21 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpilato_at_collab.net]
> Sent: donderdag 26 juli 2012 22:13
> To: Subversion Development
> Subject: Third-party provider funcs in our API: did we expose too much?
> Can anyone explain to me why the following symbols are exposed in the
> public
> Subversion API?
> svn_auth_get_platform_specific_provider
> svn_auth_get_windows_simple_provider
> svn_auth_get_windows_ssl_client_cert_pw_provider
> svn_auth_get_windows_ssl_server_trust_provider
> svn_auth_get_keychain_simple_provider
> svn_auth_get_keychain_ssl_client_cert_pw_provider
> svn_auth_get_gnome_keyring_simple_provider
> svn_auth_get_gnome_keyring_ssl_client_cert_pw_provider
> svn_auth_get_kwallet_simple_provider
> svn_auth_get_kwallet_ssl_client_cert_pw_provider
> svn_auth_get_gpg_agent_simple_provider
> svn_auth_gnome_keyring_version
> svn_auth_kwallet_version
> I mean, I recognize the value of what each of these functions provides, but
> it seems to me that svn_auth_get_platform_specific_client_providers()
> pretty
> much obsoletes all them.

You currently can't initialize a non cmdline behavior without these apis. (The only api that calls them for you also Initializes your console for you)

That might be part of the reason.

> What's more, this latter single function actually honors the runtime
> configuration's "password-stores" option value (which dictates the
> availability and preferred specific ordering of third-party providers),
> while the aforementioned list of interfaces almost begs API consumers to
> fetch providers individually and plop them into the auth subsystem's
> providers list without regard to the user-configured availability and order.

That passwords-stores option is part of the cmdline api.

(All our libraries expose a version function, so that probably explains the last two)

> Am I missing something? Is this just a holdover from the days when we
> discouraged the use of private-but-non-static functions?
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Received on 2012-07-26 22:34:08 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.