[Monotone-devel] Re: mtn automate tcp

[Lapo Luchini]

Thomas Keller wrote:
> Ulf Ochsenfahrt schrieb:
>> 1. Security
> Hrm... maybe its not that good idea...

I was thinking about 127.0.0.1 anyway, but there's the multiuser problem
of course (thought it would not be an issue in the use-case "I have a
dedicated web server and I want to access monotone from some web-app").

What about file sockets?
They do have permissions like usual files, I suppose?

Anyway even an authentication like "all or nothing" could be sufficient,
as having access to the file itself gives the same kind of
all-or-nothing authentication.

>> 5. Multiple Access
>> You'd need to figure out some way to handle the locking issues you get
>> with multiple concurrent access.
> There is absolutely no concurrency in stdio today and I doubt it is
> useful to allow such things when stdio works on a single db in the
> backend since their access would need to be streamlined anyways. So if
> an action is running, the service would probably need to give some
> "busy" signal back to the calling request.

Or wait in queue for a few seconds and only then giving the "busy"
signal, but that wouldn't be a very big problem.

Do read-only commands (e.g. automate get_*) block the DB totally as well?

    Lapo