Re: [PATCH 00/17] object-store: carve out the object database subsystem

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 5/6/25 7:09 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

> this patch series refactors the object store subsystem to become more
> self-contained by getting rid of `the_repository`. Instead of passing in
> the repository explicitly, we start to pass in the object store itself,
> which is in contrast to many other refactorings we did, but in line with
> what we did for the ref store, as well.
> 
> This series also starts to properly scope functions to the carved out
> object database subsystem, which requires a bit of shuffling. This
> allows us to have a short-and-sweet `odb_` prefix for functions and
> prepares us for a future with pluggable object backends.
> 
> The series is structured as follows:
> 
>    - Patches 1 to 3 rename `struct object_store` and `struct
>      object_directory` as well as the code files.

Patches 1 and 2 involve renaming some core structures, and I had
some questions around these names (since we hope to be stuck with
the new names for a long time). I was thinking out loud on a per-
patch basis, but now want to collect my thoughts around these:

  * raw_object_store currently describes the abstraction that contains
    all objects that can be accessed within the repository. This may
    include multiple alternates. Patch 1 renames this to
    'object_database'.

  * object_directory currently describes a single directory that
    has the same structure as $GIT_DIR/objects/ but may be an alternate
    or a submodule object directory. Patch 2 renames this to
    'odb_backend'.

My concerns around this are basically around not liking "backend" for
this purpose. When I think of a backend, I'm thinking about the
implementation details (like the refs backend being files or reftable)
and not multiple distinct locations that have their own objects.

In this sense, I'm partial to being brief for the most-common structure
that will be passed around and then more descriptive about the smaller
pieces:

  * 'struct raw_object_store' could be renamed to 'struct odb' to match
    its use in all of the new odb_*() methods. This represents the
    "object database abstraction" and consumers don't care if this is
    one or many object directories in a trench coat.

  * 'struct object_directory' could be renamed to 'struct odb_shard' or
    'struct odb_slice' or similar. I may even recommend 'odb_partition'
    though that does imply some disjointness that is not guaranteed (an
    object can exist in multiple parts).

  * In the event that we create multiple implementations for storing
    objects, then a 'struct odb_shard' could point to a backend to help
    find the appropriate methods for interacting with its storage.

  * "alternate refs" are locked in as names based on the following
    config key names:

    - core.alternateRefsCommand
    - core.alternateRefsPrefix

    These user-facing names should not change. This may be valuable to
    make sure that the 'odb_shard's still have a state of "I'm an
    alternate" or "I'm the base read/write shard for this repo".

>    - Patches 4 to 12 refactor "odb.c" to get rid of `the_repository`.

These are carefully done. Thanks. I only have a few nitpicks here
and there.

>    - Patches 13 to 17 adjust the name of remaining functions so that they
>      can be clearly attributed to the ODB. I'm happy to kick these
>      patches out of this series and resend them at a later point in case
>      they create too much turmoil.

I like that these are present, especially because you included
compatibility macros for in-flight topics.

I do mention that the rename of the object-store.[c|h] files may be
unnecessary, or perhaps could be delayed until this series is merged
and the collateral is calmed.

---

This was clearly a lot of work to put together. Thanks for working
hard to thoughtfully rename things while refactoring to reduce our
dependence on global state.

Thanks,
-Stolee