Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?

Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?

[Mike Hommey]

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 ?

Cheers,

Mike

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

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:

> 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 ?

Really, I was waiting for somebody needing ftp and/or sftp support badly 
enough, so let's keep it.

I mean, one of those guys asking for ftp push support _got_ to just start 
scratching that itch, right?

Ciao,
Dscho

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

[Mike Hommey]

On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:46:59PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> 
> > 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 ?
> 
> Really, I was waiting for somebody needing ftp and/or sftp support badly 
> enough, so let's keep it.
> 
> I mean, one of those guys asking for ftp push support _got_ to just start 
> scratching that itch, right?

Though, technically, ftp push could work with the curl code.

Mike

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

[Jakub Narebski]

Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:

> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:46:59PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 ?
>> 
>> Really, I was waiting for somebody needing ftp and/or sftp support badly 
>> enough, so let's keep it.
>> 
>> I mean, one of those guys asking for ftp push support _got_ to just start 
>> scratching that itch, right?
> 
> Though, technically, ftp push could work with the curl code.

IIRC git fetch works with FTP transport.  Somebody would have to write
replacement for WebDAV authentication for ftp / sftp / ftps to have
proper ftp push support.  There were request, but AFAIR no code.

Are you thinking about POP / IMAP transport, or XMPP one ;-PPP ?
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

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

[Daniel Barkalow]

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.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

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

[Mike Hommey]

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

http-push as a builtin ? (Was: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?)

[Mike Hommey]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:17:49AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> 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.

BTW, would there be objections to have http-push as a builtin ?

Mike

Re: http-push as a builtin ? (Was: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?)

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:17:49AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> BTW, would there be objections to have http-push as a builtin ?

Not from me. Actually, it would be ideal to call its functions directly 
from transport.c and deprecate the separate command. (And possibly 
separate the control structure from the HTTP code and move the former into 
walker.c where it could be used by sftp)

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*