Re: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?

[Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>]

On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 04:23:17PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > While working on the http code refactoring, I got to wonder if the
> > walker.c "wrapper", that is only used for the http transport, is still
> > worth keeping. If there are plans for others transport to use this code,
> > obviously, it would be worth keeping, but on the contrary, I think it
> > would simplify the http transport code even more. What do you think ?
> 
> It would be a good base for sftp (i.e. dumb file access over ssh). In 
> fact, I think stuff should ideally be moved into walker.c such that the 
> HTTP-specific code just handles access to files by filename and the logic 
> of what files to request in what order is in walker.c. I think this would 
> get the simplification you're looking for while making it easy to add sftp 
> or any other situation where you have only slow remote filesystem-like 
> access to the repository.

I like this idea. I'll probably implement that, then.

Mike