David and others,
I guess I wouldn't be so miffed if my initial proposal hadn't received the response it did. I am quite alright with being
told that you don't perceive there is enough of a justification to port Subversion to Java. I was (and still am) somewhat a
little upset at being told I was being rude when all I was trying to do was make a friendly suggestion. I also feel that the
manner in which my proposal was shot down implied that I was stupid. I never intended to offend anyone in the slightest. I
have done my best to treat you guys with respect and I expect the same back. In the future, please try to be a little more
diplomatic.
Thank you,
Gili
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:38:35 -0700, David Waite wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:06:42 -0500, Gili <junk@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>> I value your opinion. I hope you take the time to investigate the points I
>> have brought up. Part of me feels that I am getting a lot of resistence here
>> because the Subversion developers I have talked to so far aren't experienced
>> with Java development at all. Trying to argue with people to change their
>> habits is not an easy matter; but it also does not invalidate my points :)
>>
>I fear you are misinterpreting people's reactions. Many Subversion
>developers have experience with Java (such as myself), and still feel
>that the benefit of a java implementation is far outweighted by the
>effort of porting the existing code, and all the dependancies.
>In particular against porting to Java for cross-platform benefits -
>there have been no showstoppers in porting subversion because it is
>written in portable C. The code utilizes portable dependancies (some
>of which were designed for the sole purpose of making cross platform
>compilation simple).
>The existing pure java client effort has restricted the number of
>connection methods down to prevent having to reimplement berkeley DB
>in Java - even Sleepycat wasn't willing to do a compatible port in the
>creation of their Java version.
Received on Sat Nov 27 07:04:55 2004