On Nov 21, 2007 10:14 PM, Moore, Tom <Tom.Moore@aig.com> wrote:
> >> Apparently 2 GUIs (both TortoiseSVN and Ankh) have felt it was useful
> >> to provide "cached" lock information to their users. Since there
> isn't a
> >> common
> >> API to store this information, any user who uses both tools may see
> >> conflicting
> >> information. This is bad.
>
> >Right. But where it went wrong is that they started caching
> >information which we have thought long and hard about caching but
> >decided against. It wasn't something we left out after tossing a
> >coin...
>
> >> Adding a common caching mechanism is one
> >> was to solve this issue. (Probably not the only way, and possibly
> not the
> >> best way.)
>
> >But introduce new ones. We don't want part in (a) caching [because we
> >don't believe in it as a sound solution to the problem] (b) resolving
> >the problems resorting from caching.
>
>
> I think we might have a semantics issue here. You seem to be using the
> term cache to mean something other then what we do.
>
> Subversion saves admin data about the files and directories that are in
> the working copy. That data represents the values for the revisions
> that were requested *at the time that they were last requested*.
>
> That Admin data is what we are calling a cache. Its what Tortoise, Ankh
> and other clients use when they present the GUI views. Based on our
> view of caching, you do believe in it... because that's what you
> implemented.
All of the data cached isn't transient... That is a *HUGE* difference.
We don't think caching transient data is the solution to the problem
you're trying to solve.
Bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 21 22:26:17 2007