Panagiotis Korros <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 01/05/2005
> There is an abandoned implementation in
> that was using the org.eclipse.team.core.variants.ThreeWaySubscriber.
> This implementation was fetching the base and remote trees to create
> the SyncInfo objects.
> It was abandonded mainly because it was trying to reimplement the 'svn
> status -u' functionality. It was decided that 'svn status -u' does
> this better and we switched to the SVNWorkspaceSubscriber
Yes, that is what I was getting at. I could tell looking at the Sync API
that it would be potentially less efficient that using svn status -u. The
tradeoff is that it greatly complicates the "infrastructure" code we have
to write because we cannot re-use as much of the API. Did you consider
using the API but trying to "trick it" on the back end? In other words,
perhaps the first request for either the local or remote changes could run
svn status -u and store the results away, and when it comes back a second
time to ask for the next set of changes, we could pull the results from
the previous fetch?
What I am looking for is whether you considered this and I might be
wasting my time in pursuing it. I agree that we only want to run svn
status one time if possible.
> This is because the ResourceVariantByteStore still contains the remote
> changes. In the case of an update or commit the commited/updated
> resources must be removed from the
Ick. I was hoping not to hear that. What are the other ramifications of
this? If I have run a Sync action, but then go back to say the Java
perspective and do some stuff, does that mean all of our SVN actions need
to be doing something? Not even just the ones from the Synch view?
Shouldn't something/somewhere just be using a resource change listener to
capture activity and update itself as needed? Do you think we might get
more of this for free if we are using the API at a higher level, such as
> > Does anyone have any contacts with the Eclipse Team developers? I
> > that they mentioned in the Subversion bugzilla entry that they might
> > willing to pitch-in at some point. Now would be a good time. I think
> > have advanced Subclipse to being very close to release quality. It
> > be nice if we could get some of this stuff sorted out and behind us.
> This bugzilla entry is:
Yes, I have voted for it. I just didn't know if anyone had ever talked to
them off line.
> Mark thank you for all the good work, I hope that this email will help
> you to make the sync view to finally work as expected.
You are welcome. I think the information you have provided should help,
and confirms some of my own conclusions.
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
Received on Thu Jan 6 07:12:39 2005