From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: Use sideband channel for hook messages Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:51:56 +0100 Message-ID: <4B6C3E9C.7040009@viscovery.net> References: <20100205033748.GA19255@spearce.org> <4B6C07E3.5030705@viscovery.net> <20100205153252.GC19255@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 05 16:52:16 2010 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 1NdQTb-0005Bs-Pq for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:52:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754100Ab0BEPwE (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:52:04 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:61567 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752654Ab0BEPwB (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:52:01 -0500 Received: from cpe228-254.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NdQTN-0004VY-G8; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:51:57 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C9A1660F; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:51:57 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) In-Reply-To: <20100205153252.GC19255@spearce.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Shawn O. Pearce schrieb: > Johannes Sixt wrote: >> What would you think about passing both channels to the async callback, >> and the communicating parties must agree on which channel they communicate >> by closing the unused one? It would require slight changes to all current >> async users, though. (It also requires in the threaded case that we pass >> dup()s of the pipe channels.) > > Yup, I could do that. I feel like it might be over-engineering the > solution a bit. But I'll respin the patch by splitting it apart, > and doing a bidirectional async here, since you asked nicely. I do agree about the over-engineering aspect. I mentioned it because in one patch in the past Erik Faye-Lund also extended the async infrastructure for bidirectional communication to use it in git-daemon (Windows port). Meanwhile, he's abandoned this approach because there were unsurmountable obstacles elsewhere; so if you introduce bidi now, it would not immediately buy us anything. It's your draw. -- Hannes