On 6/5/07, Fournier,Danny [NCR] <Danny.Fournier@ec.gc.ca> wrote:
> I'm just wondering the pros and cons of using http vs file.
>
> So far, I've been using the file approach. That has been positive for me
> so far.
>
> However, I might start a project with a collegue that will need access
> to the repository remotely. We're using Hamachi to bridge our connection
> and we are able to share documents via shares on our PCs through the
> Hamachi connection.
>
> I was thinking creating a share on my webserver (Win2k3, IIS, SQL 2005),
> share the repository and dev folders and have him access them through
> Hamachi using the file approach. Another idea I read about was
> installing Apache on the webserver, having it run on a different port
> and have us access the repository that way.
Yes, install Apache.
> 1. Would using http make the Subversion process faster? Checkout,
> commits, ect...?
No, it'll likely be slower. All other things being equal file:/// is
usually fastest, then svn://, then http://
> 2. Is authorization the main attraction of using Apache for repository
> access (compared to using file)?
Authentication/Authorization is one benefit, the ability to work
without needing drive mappings, or opening extra firewall ports
another, the ability to properly use hook scripts another, the option
for secure connections w/ client certificates (HTTPS) yet another.
file:/// is really best suited for a single developer working locally,
and for testing/debugging. Once you move beyond one person and
distributed access, you really ought to have Apache or svnserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 5 17:19:44 2007