On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 14:07, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: >... > I would like to also think that we will not even consider shipping > 1.7.0 unless it is faster overall than 1.6, and that would likely > include being faster for the API usage patterns of TortoiseSVN.
Absolutely true. Which is why aspersions against that are so freakin' annoying. > A couple other points/questions. > > Stefan seems to be operating under the impression that the public > libsvn_wc API is going away in 1.7. I did not think that was true? I It is not true. libsvn_wc will continue to exist and be supported. Clients may need to call into it, as far as I'm concerned. Others would like clients to only use libsvn_client functions. *shrug* We might not add public functions to the API, but we're keeping pretty much all existing concepts there and available. >... > Second, Stefan's idea of an API with flags about what you want to > retrieve makes sense to me IF we are talking about a client API. This > would seem like a good way to keep callers of the API writing to the > client API and allow us to deal with using the callbacks mentioned > from within the implementation of the client API based on the flags > passed. I do not get the push-back to this idea. The functions in our API which take flags have proven to be the most problematic over time, IMO. To hazard a guess, I think it is a cop-out to thinking harder about the semantics of what the code is really trying to do. So with the loss of those semantics, we end up with less-maintainable code. Cheers, -g
