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

Re: TSVN 1.5 + neon enabled MIT

From: Ludek Finstrle <ludek.finstrle_at_pzkagis.cz>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:55:45 +0200

Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:35:16AM +0200, Stefan Küng napsal(a):
> Ludek Finstrle wrote:
> >Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:48:28PM +0200, Stefan Küng napsal(a):
> >He pointed me the way TSVN should use neon dll (instead staticaly linked).
> >Then the end users should choose between two neon.dll (one SSPI, another
> >GSSAPI enabled). Is it acceptable solution for TSVN?
>
> Sorry, no. I won't create separate dlls if I can link that stuff
> statically. Especially something that uses any kind of security
> (openssl, sspi authentication, ...). The risk of malware interferring

I'm sorry to be in opposite but you're using runtime linkage of sspi auth.
Let's look into neon source code. There is LoadLibrary for sspi. I don't
know why sspi is ok for neon with runtime linkage while gssapi not.

> with dlls is too high, and I also really hate the problems which arise
> from using dlls (ever heard of "dll hell"?).

TSVN should use LoadLibrary with full path to neon library. So I see no
dll hell then.
I see one advantage in two neon dlls. The user should choose which auth
they'll use in TSVN settings dialog instead of playing with PATH variable.

> I don't understand the problems Joe mentioned: it would be a compile
> time option. So why is he concerned about unix users? They simply won't
> compile that stuff in!

I'm trying to talk with him about it more.

Regards,

Luf

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-20 13:56:07 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the TortoiseSVN Users mailing list.