On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 10:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Kapil, > > Right now, the svn transactions are entirely contained within a single > fileops operation: for example a "mkdir" connects to a transaction root, > performs the necessary operations, and commits, all in one shot. >
ok, thats what about what i expected. not ideal but it works. > Last night I took some more time to try and learn more about Ape's > functionning (Where events come from, which interfaces are used for what, > and TPC), so I'm starting to understand more ... > > The more I learn, the more I think closer integration between SVN txn's and > Ape's TPC would be a good place to start before looking at adding features > like history support and so on: defining a model for what happens in svn for > each TPC related call (connect, vote, finish), and then as Shane had said, > look at IFSReader/IFSWriter (Which I now call > ISubversionReader/ISubversionWriter :P) to match. part of the reason i never used ape as a means for svn integration was was that this imo, mix of high level application operations with zodb storage level operations never seemed a proper fit as it required bypassing the storage interface for richer semantic operations. ie i see reverting a revision, tagging a content tree, or diffing mulitiple revisions as application operations. still, there have been the some compelling ideas here about using zodb/ape as an interface. > > Right now the fs implementation stores "script commands" that are cummulated > upon connect() (I think?), validated as best as possible upon vote() and run > upon finish(). I don't see why this couldn't be adapted to SVN txn's ... > connect() = start a txn, vote() = validation (what this entails needs to be > defined, could involve delta operations, revision number matching, etc ... > ?), finish() = commit the svn txn. > not exactly, you just start a txn, do whatever work, and commit in vote. see my previous message outlining txn integration difficulties, and why this is not ideal but currently the best option. > Because we're within an svn transaction, there would be no need for fs style > script command accumulation however, which is nice. > sure. should we move this discussion to an ape specific mailing list? -kapil _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )