Larry Jones wrote:
> Derek R. Price writes:
> >
> > Of course, as I mentioned before, all of this complicates the design of the
> > reentrant server that has apparently been in the works, or at least in
> > planning, for awhile.
>
> As far as I know, nothing has been done along thoses lines -- it was
> more of an idea than an actual plan.
The advice in the HACKING file is still to aim in that direction:
Although this is a long-term goal, it also would be nice to move CVS
in the direction of reentrancy. This reduces the size of the data
segment and will allow a multi-threaded server if that is desirable.
It is also useful to write the code so that it can be easily be made
reentrant later. For example, if you need to pass data from a
Parse_Info caller to its callproc, you need a static variable. But
use a single pointer so that when Parse_Info is fixed to pass along a
void * argument, then the code can easily use that argument.
Also, there do some to be some advantages to eventual reentrancy, mostly speed
and memory profile advantages available from using threads instead of separate
processes, I believe.
Are you suggesting that reentrancy no longer be a long-term goal? Simply that
pratical considerations make a security design like Alexey's more important in
the short term?
Derek
--
Derek Price CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CollabNet ( http://collab.net )
--
"Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes!"
_______________________________________________
Bug-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
