I agree that a pythonic API is required. I think that basing a solution
on the rapidsvn's svncpp API is a better starting point then the C API.
At 18-10-2003 17:31, Petri Savolainen wrote:
>While nicely complete, the python swig-generated api would benefit from
>something more "pythonic" on top of it. Is anyone in process of building a
>more pythonic api on top of the C-to-python swig-wrapped api?
>
>I am thinking along the lines of something that would allow simple iteration
>over the directories, entries and properties.
>By the way, since python has good berkeley db support built-in now, could
>someone elaborate how would accessing the svn database directly rather than
>via the current api compare, in terms of effort and difficulty?
Having the BDB access is only a small part of what you need to build a SVN
clone in python. There is the WebDAV protocol and the SVNserver protocol
to deal with as well.
>Direct access would allow skipping the swig layer and apr stuff completely,
>which would seem quite a bonus to me, even though I don't have a good idea
>of what kind of overhead they bring. Having to maintain code that accesses
>an internal database structure directly is, of course, a downside, but I
>don't think it would be too much of an effort to abstract that and keep it
>up-to-date.
The overhead of SWIG is not an issue.
Barry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 18 20:50:25 2003