All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: Core and Not-So Core
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 02:22:45 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2cfc4032050510092238259b63@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1115739511.16187.432.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com>

On 5/11/05, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 01:00 +1000, Jon Seymour wrote:
> > I have been experimenting with pure-Java implementation of GIT
> > concepts with a goal of eventually providing plugins to Eclipse to
> > allow the Eclipse GUI to interact with GIT repositories.
> 
> It's not April 1st. Why would you want to reimplement it in Java instead
> of just using the existing implementation? Is this a religious issue?
> 

Not really - in the Java world, things are simpler if you don't have
to carry around a JNI library - that way, you can just run it wherever
a Java interpreter exists and not worry about
having someone recompiling the JNI part. 

A pure-Java implementation will perform better than a
Java-invokes-C-executable approach [ though not, of course, a C-only
approach ].

Another benefit of playing around with a Java abstraction is that I
can more easily experiment with abstractions than I can in C since the
abstraction-facilities of Java more directly support such playing than
does C. So, for example, I can easily create a virtual repository
which layers a local repository over a remote repository and
transparently populates the local repository from the remote
repository "on-demand". Of course, this sort of thing can be done in
C, but it requires much more "work" to set up the abstractions.

You could perhaps argue that the existing 'C' tools in some way
encapsulate access  to the repository format. Maybe, but the fact is
the rapid adoption of GIT has already effectively fixed the GIT
repository format in practice so any change in repository format will
require considerable planning anyway - planning that will allow
sufficient time for implementations in other languages to catch up.

So, no, it's not a religious issue. If anything, it is being dogmatic
to insist that the sacred GIT repository structure only be manipulated
by 'C' tools blessed by the hands of Linus.

The concepts in GIT are bigger than the programming language its
toolsets are implemented in.

jon.
-- 
homepage: http://www.zeta.org.au/~jon/
blog: http://orwelliantremors.blogspot.com/

  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-05-10 16:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-05-10 15:00 Core and Not-So Core Jon Seymour
2005-05-10 15:38 ` David Woodhouse
2005-05-10 15:50   ` Eduardo Teixeira Dias
2005-05-10 16:00     ` David Woodhouse
2005-05-10 16:19       ` Eduardo Teixeira Dias
2005-05-10 21:45         ` Diego Calleja
2005-05-10 22:33           ` Eduardo Teixeira Dias
2005-05-10 23:03             ` Diego Calleja
2005-05-10 23:11               ` Horst von Brand
2005-05-10 22:33           ` Eduardo Teixeira Dias
2005-05-10 22:34           ` Eduardo Teixeira Dias
2005-05-10 22:44           ` Petr Baudis
2005-05-10 22:54             ` Andreas Gal
2005-05-10 23:04             ` James Purser
2005-05-11  7:17           ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-05-11  7:42             ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-10 16:22   ` Jon Seymour [this message]
2005-05-10 17:03     ` David Woodhouse
     [not found]       ` <2cfc403205051010151304d88a@mail.gmail.com>
2005-05-10 17:15         ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-10 17:25           ` David Woodhouse
2005-05-10 17:36             ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-10 17:41               ` Christoph Hellwig
     [not found]                 ` <2cfc40320505101051207c9ce4@mail.gmail.com>
2005-05-10 17:51                   ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-10 18:01                     ` Davide Libenzi
2005-05-11  1:59           ` Rik van Riel
2005-05-11  2:09             ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-11  2:14               ` Petr Baudis
2005-05-10 22:18 ` Daniel Barkalow
     [not found]   ` <2cfc40320505101605721420@mail.gmail.com>
2005-05-10 23:05     ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-10 23:08       ` Petr Baudis
2005-05-10 23:20         ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-11 16:45           ` Daniel Barkalow
     [not found]             ` <2cfc403205051114087d283279@mail.gmail.com>
2005-05-11 21:09               ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-10 22:52 ` Petr Baudis
2005-05-11  0:50   ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-11  1:17     ` Peter Williams
2005-05-11  2:30     ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-05-11  3:02       ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-11 11:21 ` Noel Grandin
2005-05-11 14:40   ` Jon Seymour
2005-05-18 18:35 ` Juliusz Chroboczek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2cfc4032050510092238259b63@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jon.seymour@gmail.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jon@blackcubes.dyndns.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.