Re: [TSVN] RFC: New cache scheme
From: Will Dean <svn_at_indcomp.co.uk>
Date: 2005-01-21 15:49:42 CET
At 15:41 21/01/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Yes, it would be a security issue. So called priviledge escalations
Yes, although the flip-side is that LOCALSYSTEM is actually less privileged
>The advantage of a service isn't just that it's loaded before someone
I'm not sure I'm convinced. You can stop a service automatically starting
But anyway, if the shell autostarts the cache if it needs it, who cares?
>But that's something we can decide later.
Yes, if somebody wants to put up with all the SCM crap, they can do that.
>I've seen that you haven't changed the column provider yet to use your
It is using it, actually, because the SVNFolderStatus call it asking the
>If we ever(?) want to start the cache process as a service, then the
Yes (not sure I agree about the reasons, but certainly would need to be
>Not really. It would require a lot of rewriting the existing code, but
Would it? We could make an ATL COM object to carry the property page in
>Yes. But that error can also happen under other circumstances, so it's
But we could use it to queue a deferred update of that item.
>Looks very good so far. I'll have a closer look this weekend.
I'm currently re-writing it to change the way directory status is
Cheers,
Will
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
This is an archived mail posted to the TortoiseSVN Dev mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.