Re: svn_fs_delete() vs. svn_fs_delete_tree()

[kf...@collab.net]

"C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net> writes:
> For the life of me, I've never understood why we have both
> svn_fs_delete() (which only works on files) and svn_fs_delete_tree()
> (which works on both files and directories) in our public API.  Our
> code always calls svn_fs_delete_tree() because it saves us a 'kind'
> check.  Anyone opposed to losing svn_fs_delete(), and then renaming
> svn_fs_delete_tree() to svn_fs_delete()?  Am I missing something
> obvious?

There is a difference between the two functions -- one sets a baton
flag to FALSE, the other sets it to TRUE.

txn_body_delete() uses the flag to behave differently...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: svn_fs_delete() vs. svn_fs_delete_tree()

[kf...@collab.net]

Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> writes:
> >>For the life of me, I've never understood why we have both
> >>svn_fs_delete() (which only works on files) and svn_fs_delete_tree()
> >>(which works on both files and directories) in our public API.  Our
> >>code always calls svn_fs_delete_tree() because it saves us a 'kind'
> >>check.  Anyone opposed to losing svn_fs_delete(), and then renaming
> >>svn_fs_delete_tree() to svn_fs_delete()?  Am I missing something
> >>obvious?
> > There is a difference between the two functions -- one sets a baton
> > flag to FALSE, the other sets it to TRUE.
> > txn_body_delete() uses the flag to behave differently...
> 
> Pardon my impudence, Karl, but that was an almost content-free
> reply, given that C-Mike had already perceived that the two
> functions are different.  :-)

I misunderstood what Mike was saying, yes.  (I could explain it, but
trust me, it's a very boring misunderstanding.)

Sure, +1 on just going with delete_tree.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: svn_fs_delete() vs. svn_fs_delete_tree()

[Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>]

kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net> writes:
> 
>>For the life of me, I've never understood why we have both
>>svn_fs_delete() (which only works on files) and svn_fs_delete_tree()
>>(which works on both files and directories) in our public API.  Our
>>code always calls svn_fs_delete_tree() because it saves us a 'kind'
>>check.  Anyone opposed to losing svn_fs_delete(), and then renaming
>>svn_fs_delete_tree() to svn_fs_delete()?  Am I missing something
>>obvious?
> 
> There is a difference between the two functions -- one sets a baton
> flag to FALSE, the other sets it to TRUE.
> 
> txn_body_delete() uses the flag to behave differently...

Pardon my impudence, Karl, but that was an almost content-free reply, given that C-Mike had already perceived that the two functions are different.  :-)

As I read it, the difference is not that svn_fs_delete() only works on files, but that it will delete a directory only if it is empty.  In other words, it is like svn_fs_delete_tree() but with a check for emptiness prepended.  In a user interface, such a check is usual to try to avoid disaster, but that does not seem appropriate for an API.

svn_fs_delete[_tree] are wrappers around svn_fs__dag_delete[_tree].  svn_fs_delete is indeed not used, except by its test suite, and nothing apart from it uses svn_fs__dag_delete.

C-Mike's idea of losing the non-recursive version sounds OK to me.

- Julian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org