On 19.09.2015 19:20, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 19 September 2015 at 17:24, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >> On 19 September 2015 at 14:03, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On 19.09.2015 13:12, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>> On 18 September 2015 at 12:49, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 05:41:41PM +0200, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>>>> That branch is complete and ready for merging, but I'm still not sure >>>>>> whether we should merge it or not. >>>>> I think we should merge it to trunk now. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think this branch can improve much further unless we start >>>>> exercising the code ourselves to see how well it's working for us. >>>>> >>>>> ANd I believe it's hard to tell whether these changes provide an >>>>> actual benefit in practice without running the code for a while. >>>>> >>>>> I like the debug and profiling functionality. >>>>> This should make it easy to tune the system going forward. >>>> Ok. It seems people here generally support 'reuse-ra-session' branch >>>> concept. So I'm going to merge this branch to trunk and see how it >>>> will work. >>> +1 >> Merged to trunk in r1704048. >> > The r1704048 broke JavaHL tests. > > This happens because JavaHL bindings changes content of AUTH_BATON > field in svn_client_ctx_t between diferent svn_client_*() invocations. > While RA session in RA session pool references AUTH_BATON from first > invocation. > > The most interesting question is it allowed by our API or not?
Unfortunately, I'd say it is because none of the API docs say otherwise. Or at least I can't find any. > If it's not allowed we just need to fix JavaHL to use the same AUTH_BATON. I think the most interesting question here is: why is JavaHL doing this in the first place? I have to confess I've no idea, offhand. -- Brane
