From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Hommey Subject: Re: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:17:49 +0100 Organization: glandium.org Message-ID: <20080128071749.GA12488@glandium.org> References: <20080127204535.GA4702@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 28 08:16:02 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JJODq-0007r2-1G for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:16:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751499AbYA1HPc (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:15:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750980AbYA1HPc (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:15:32 -0500 Received: from vuizook.err.no ([85.19.215.103]:53504 "EHLO vuizook.err.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750780AbYA1HPb (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:15:31 -0500 Received: from aputeaux-153-1-85-206.w86-205.abo.wanadoo.fr ([86.205.43.206] helo=jigen) by vuizook.err.no with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JJODj-000881-0J; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:16:01 +0100 Received: from mh by jigen with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JJOFZ-0003SR-Dw; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:17:49 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Fingerprint: A479 A824 265C B2A5 FC54 8D1E DE4B DA2C 54FD 2A58 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Spam-Status: (score 2.2): No, score=2.2 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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