On 18.04.2011 21:09, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 04/16/2011 08:40 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
On 14.04.2011 22:32, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 14.04.2011 21:03, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:43 -0400, "C. Michael Pilato"<cmpil...@collab.net>
wrote:
I'm honestly not quite sure exactly where the right place is. I don't
really see what moving it to libsvn_fs does for us -- IMO, it's still
wrong for svn_ra_initialize() call into that. (libsvn_ra should only
call into libsvn_subr, libsvn_delta, and its own RA provider vtable.)
Would svn_cmdline_init() be a better place to call the init
function from?
Clearly not, since that function is a startup helper for command-line
programs, not for libraries.
There seem to be two separate questions to answer:
(1) Where to put the functionality?
(2) Where to call it?
I get the impression that there is some consensus that
the answer to (1) is libsvn_subr.
Works for me.
The answer to the second one is more difficult. To default-
override the default settings this must be done early, i.e.
before they will be evaluated / used. And clients like TSVN
must be able to change the settings after the client libs
changed the defaults and before the settings get used.
Since the changed default is only relevant for time-critical
clients, i.e. those being run many times automatically, e.g.
as part of some script. IMHO, it would be fine to simply
move the override code to the SVN.EXE main(). This would
also make it symmetric to svnadmin and svnserve.
So ... do you literally mean main(), or are you back to the suggestion of
using svn_cmdline_init()?
Literally main(). Setting up caching limits etc. is similar
to creating the apr root pool and limiting its allocator -
which is done inside main().
Also, this is clearly tool-specific as svn.exe seems to be
the only tool that would want to disable the membuffer
cache. A central function like svn_cmdline_init() would
be inappropriate.
-- Stefan^2.
