Perhaps we should then start by looking at the documentation of the public API, which states this requirement instead of qualifying a single function 3 levels deeper as having a problem without looking at the other places that have the same requirements 'as documented’.
I explicitly documented the requirement and even with this requirement it is a useful function for the cases as in libsvn_client.. Should we really repeat and discuss that at ever level?
It is not a magic function that will solve everything for everyone. But that is why we have different API entry points for different features and not a single c function that performs every operation.
Bertt
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Branko Čibej
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 2:00 PM
To: Subversion Development
On 20.12.2013 13:47, Bert Huijben wrote:
> The way we use it now from libsvn_client is safe as we always
> construct these sessions based on the state in svn_client_ctx_t, which
> must outlive both Ra sessions.
The svn_ra API is a separate, stand-alone public API. Your argument that
the implementation is safe because of some incidental internals of
libsvn_client is, frankly, nonsense.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane_at_wandisco.com
Received on 2013-12-20 16:00:56 CET