From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nasser Grainawi Subject: Re: [JGIT] Request for help Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:09:35 -0600 Organization: Code Aurora Forum Message-ID: <4AA0308F.9@codeaurora.org> References: <4A9EFFB1.9090501@codeaurora.org> <20090903012315.GG1033@spearce.org> <4AA01D08.3060400@codeaurora.org> <20090903194955.GL1033@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 03 23:09:47 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MjJYw-0001sf-TR for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:09:47 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932306AbZICVJf (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:09:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932301AbZICVJf (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:09:35 -0400 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:40471 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932269AbZICVJf (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:09:35 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5730"; a="23083576" Received: from pdmz-ns-mip.qualcomm.com (HELO mostmsg01.qualcomm.com) ([199.106.114.10]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 03 Sep 2009 14:09:37 -0700 Received: from [129.46.10.111] (pdmz-snip-v218.qualcomm.com [192.168.218.1]) by mostmsg01.qualcomm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1542B10004C9; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:11:49 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) In-Reply-To: <20090903194955.GL1033@spearce.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Nasser Grainawi wrote: >> Shawn O. Pearce wrote: >>> Hmm, maybe a method on Patch is reasonable. >> Going down this route, I'd add a few things to Patch. >> patchId would be a private field (of type ObjectId?) >> getPatchId would be a public method that returns patchId >> and then likely a private method (computePatchId?) that actually >> generates the patchId > > Sure, but getPatchId can compute it on demand on the first call, > and anyone who modifies the Patch would just need to clear out > the cached patchId value so the next call (if it ever comes) to > getPatchId would force it to recompute. > > Most users of Patch won't want the patchId, so there is no reason > to compute it. > Works for me, that's even easier. I'll get to work on implementing this, but between (re-)learning Java and our legal dept, don't know when I'll have a finished product to share... I'll continue to post questions as I get them. Thanks everyone for their help thus far :)