On 29.07.2014 15:55, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com
> <mailto:brane_at_wandisco.com>> wrote:
> On 29.07.2014 14:55, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com
>> <mailto:brane_at_wandisco.com>> wrote:
>> On 29.07.2014 13:34, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> <mailto:brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>> On 28.07.2014 19:19, stefan2_at_apache.org <mailto:stefan2_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Author: stefan2
>>>>> Date: Mon Jul 28 17:19:47 2014
>>>>> New Revision: 1614080
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1614080
>>>>> On the authzperf branch: Implement the notion of path rule ordering
>>>>> by making svn_config_t iterate through sections in declaration order.
>>>>> This is done using a simple linked list because we can't remove
>>>>> sections but only add them.
>>>> No no no no!
>>> What exactly did my change break?
>>> Right now, the svn_config interface returns the sections in random order.
>>> I changed the code such that this random order happens to be the same
>>> as the (static and dynamic) declaration order.
>>>> Changing the svn_config_t structure is not the right to do this. The correct
>>>> approach here is to parametrise the svn_config parser with a constructor
>>>> method, then create a new constructor for the authz parser which will then
>>>> get all entries in the file order. Please revert these svn_config changes.
>>> I reverted the changes for now as I agree that the new behaviour
>>> should be somewhat more explicit.
>>> However, since this is not about construction (the result would
>>> still be a hash)
>> You are making way too many assumptions about that. See my
>> svn_config parser parametrization in r1614213
>>> The second point is more severe, though, as it prevents a nicer
>>> model than what svn_config_t already provides. The following is
>>> a legal authz
> I'm going to skip commenting on this because I don't see how it's
> The point is that you can't interpret any of the stream
> beyond the key/value model already implemented by
> svn_config_t until you have read the whole stream.
That's true for config files, but not necessarily for authz files.
> So, while you can without doubt parse the file streamily,
> you cannot begin to build a data model with authz
> semantics from it streamily. We can go down the path
> of inventing some intermediate model that performs
> slightly better than the current svn_config_t but that
> is a lot of coding simply to avoid a perfectly reasonable
> API bump.
Actually, it's not as perfectly reasonable as all that. Consider:
x = 1
y = 2
z = 3
So ... in what order should these sections be enumerated?
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco | Realising the impossibilities of Big Data
Received on 2014-07-29 17:55:29 CEST