On 11/28/07, 朱勃豪 <bohao@sunnorth.com.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi Eckhardt,
>
> Thanks for your replying.
>
> If you have ever tried Lotus Notes, you will find that this is the normal behavior of it especially in the enterprise domain. If it really bothers you, I apologize for that. I don't want to state again about the replying method. And if you search for the full thread of this mail you will find out the issue which I wrote in the first mail.
>
> I believe we should only focus on the issue itself for that is why we post mails in the mailling list.
>
> I have to say why I made the comparision between SVN in linux/windows and TSVN in windows for TSVN uses SVN library. If SVN has the problem, TSVN might has the same porblem. But after my experiment, I found TSVN works fine. So I put this result into the mailling list. I did experiments and I want to find out where the problem is. After Erik told me that ther is no limits in SVN itself. I turned to APR. And now I found that the limit in APR is APR_PATH_MAX which is defined to 1024. But this value still can not explain why svn ended with error "file name too long" for the file name is only 200 bytes (and the full path is 281 bytes).
>
> I don't want to trace this issue any more for it is not a subversion issue. It should be an APR problem.
Look. I'm telling you "This is NOT an APR problem" as I have told you
before. You're comparing 2 operating systems, then you have to look at
their differences. Check the behaviour of the OS without any
compatibility layers.
You can compare all you want between the 2 operating systems, but I
suggest you try creating a little program which tries to create the
given file directly on the operating system (not through APR). If that
works *then* *maybe* it's an APR problem.
bye,
Erik.
Received on Wed Nov 28 11:18:49 2007