On 19 Dec 2004, at 00:46, BillyJoe McCue wrote:
I have a friend of mine who has brought up the subject of Subversion several times in the past few conversations we had about content management and Apache Slide. He asked me if these two technologies were attempting to achieve basically the same thing and/or if they would be competition for each other. We compared notes from or research to date, but lack of extensive experience with these products has left us still wondering. My response to his statements of many interesting Subversion features was that they sounded similliar to some of the new Projector features and abilities with slide.
Just wondering if anybody else had a clearer comparison.
Given that I kinda use both, I can see the advantages (and disadvantages) of both products...
SVN is _entirely_ focused on version control: it's not a delta-v client, doesn't support any kind of whatsoever DASL, it's very "basic" per se, but on the other hands it has a shedload of features essential for source files and project management: integration with native operating systems (think about TortoiseSVN, minimal network traffic (it uses its own DIFF algorithm to create new versions), and so on and so forth...
It's a _great_ tool when you think about version management a-la CVS, and WebDav support is a nice addition as you can check-out a project without any need for a full SVN client (which is handy).
A couple of "bad" things about it are that sometimes it misses some transactions (especially when the client hits "stop" on a commit, or things like that), and resources are not versioned independently, but rather the tree has a single standalone version (which is good for projects as a whole, but not that great for single files such as an XML repository).
Slide, on the other hand, is a great tool for all those other uses I haven't mentioned above... It's WebDav support is the core of its design and I can't think of anything better to use for my XML repository (it integrates seamlessly with Cocoon, and with all the clients I've tested it with), but it somehow lacks of something like a "svn checkout" or a "svn commit" (or at least I didn't find that out) which are legacy from the old CVS model...
In other words, maybe, you should really look into SVN if you want a fully featured source control system with a ton of client functionality, while you should be looking at Slide if you are looking for a very extensible, fully compliant webdav server repository...
Or at least, that's my experience...
Pier
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
