From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/4] gitweb: Move subroutines to Gitweb::Config module Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:13:21 +0200 Message-ID: <20100608141321.GP20775@machine.or.cz> References: <1275943844-24991-1-git-send-email-pavan.sss1991@gmail.com> <201006081446.22587.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pavan Kumar Sunkara , git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 08 16:13:36 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLzYa-0003m9-4u for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:32 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755360Ab0FHON0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:13:26 -0400 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:60732 "EHLO machine.or.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755322Ab0FHONZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:13:25 -0400 Received: by machine.or.cz (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4813D862096; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:13:21 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201006081446.22587.jnareb@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi! On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:46:20PM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Third, and I think most important, is that the whole splitting gitweb into > modules series seems to alck direction, some underlying architecture > design. For example Gitweb::HTML, Gitweb::HTML::Link, Gitweb::HTML::String > seems to me too detailed, too fine-grained modules. I agree! > It was not visible at first, because Gitweb::Config, Gitweb::Request and to > a bit lesser extent Gitweb::Git fell out naturally. But should there be > for example Gitweb::Escape module, or should its functionality be a part of > Gitweb::Util? Those issues needs to be addressed. Perhaps they were > discussed with this GSoC project mentors (via IRC, private email, IM), but > we don't know what is the intended architecture design of gitweb. I would expect Gitweb::Escape functionality to live in Gitweb::HTML (HTML escaping) and/or Gitweb::Request (URL escaping). > Should we try for Model-Viewer-Controller pattern without backing MVC > (micro)framework? (One of design decisions for gitweb was have it working > out of the box if Perl and git are installed, without requiring to install > extra modules; but now we can install extra Perl modules e.g. from CPAN > under lib/...). How should we organize gitweb code into packages > (modules)? I thought we already discussed MVC and sort of agreed that it's an overkill at this point. At least that is still my opinion on it; I'm not opposed to MVC per se, but to me, this modularization is a good intermediate step even if we go the MVC way later, and doing MVC properly would mean much huger large-scale refactoring than just naming a module Gitweb::View instead of Gitweb::HTML. Let's do it not at all, or properly sometime later. I think it's well out-of-scope for GSoC. > Perhaps having gitweb.perl, Gitweb::Git, Gitweb::Config, Gitweb::Request, > Gitweb::Util and Gitweb would be enough? I'm not sure what would fall into Gitweb::Util. I think Gitweb::HTML makes a lot of sense to have, but I don't see the advantage of finer graining than that - I dislike the Gitweb::HTML::* submodules as well. Pavan, can you outline your next plan on the other modules you aim to create, plus possibly a bit of rationale? -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis The true meaning of life is to plant a tree under whose shade you will never sit.