You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net> on 2005/11/02 13:07:53 UTC
Re: Sharing libsvn_fs_* internals [was: "Locked" messages useless]
>There are quite a few similarities in the logic of the backend. The
>foremost difference is that in the BDB code, there are 'trail'
>arguments all over the map, whereas the FSFS code has none. This is a
>pretty significant difference, though.
>
>I spent a few hours thinking about the next generation of our
>filesystem last night, and I'm convinced at this point that to undergo
>some sort of major code unification effort today would be a waste.
>Better to begin thinking about how to properly segregate the business
>logic from the storage format peculiarities in the next generation of
>the filesystem; better still to invest real effort into deciding if
>we've a need for multiple backends at all.
>
>
>
Wow! are you serious? A single backend as in no more vtable at the API?
What release would you see this at?
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Sharing libsvn_fs_* internals [was: "Locked" messages useless]
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
>Let's not get ahead of ourselves, here. I said exactly as much as I
>meant to say -- no less, no more.
>
>
>
Okay, Okay:-)
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Sharing libsvn_fs_* internals [was: "Locked" messages useless]
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
"Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net> writes:
> >There are quite a few similarities in the logic of the backend. The
> >foremost difference is that in the BDB code, there are 'trail'
> >arguments all over the map, whereas the FSFS code has none. This is a
> >pretty significant difference, though.
> >
> >I spent a few hours thinking about the next generation of our
> >filesystem last night, and I'm convinced at this point that to undergo
> >some sort of major code unification effort today would be a waste.
> >Better to begin thinking about how to properly segregate the business
> >logic from the storage format peculiarities in the next generation of
> >the filesystem; better still to invest real effort into deciding if
> >we've a need for multiple backends at all.
> >
> >
> Wow! are you serious? A single backend as in no more vtable at the API?
> What release would you see this at?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, here. I said exactly as much as I
meant to say -- no less, no more.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org