Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/4] gitweb: Move subroutines to Gitweb::Config module
Hi!
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:46:20PM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> Third, and I think most important, is that the whole splitting gitweb into
> modules series seems to alck direction, some underlying architecture
> design. For example Gitweb::HTML, Gitweb::HTML::Link, Gitweb::HTML::String
> seems to me too detailed, too fine-grained modules.
Show 6 quoted lines
> It was not visible at first, because Gitweb::Config, Gitweb::Request and to
> a bit lesser extent Gitweb::Git fell out naturally. But should there be
> for example Gitweb::Escape module, or should its functionality be a part of
> Gitweb::Util? Those issues needs to be addressed. Perhaps they were
> discussed with this GSoC project mentors (via IRC, private email, IM), but
> we don't know what is the intended architecture design of gitweb.
I would expect Gitweb::Escape functionality to live in Gitweb::HTML
(HTML escaping) and/or Gitweb::Request (URL escaping).
Show 6 quoted lines
> Should we try for Model-Viewer-Controller pattern without backing MVC
> (micro)framework? (One of design decisions for gitweb was have it working
> out of the box if Perl and git are installed, without requiring to install
> extra modules; but now we can install extra Perl modules e.g. from CPAN
> under lib/...). How should we organize gitweb code into packages
> (modules)?
I thought we already discussed MVC and sort of agreed that it's an
overkill at this point. At least that is still my opinion on it; I'm not
opposed to MVC per se, but to me, this modularization is a good
intermediate step even if we go the MVC way later, and doing MVC properly
would mean much huger large-scale refactoring than just naming a module
Gitweb::View instead of Gitweb::HTML. Let's do it not at all, or
properly sometime later. I think it's well out-of-scope for GSoC.
> Perhaps having gitweb.perl, Gitweb::Git, Gitweb::Config, Gitweb::Request,
> Gitweb::Util and Gitweb would be enough?
I'm not sure what would fall into Gitweb::Util. I think Gitweb::HTML
makes a lot of sense to have, but I don't see the advantage of finer
graining than that - I dislike the Gitweb::HTML::* submodules as well.
Pavan, can you outline your next plan on the other modules you aim to
create, plus possibly a bit of rationale?
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
The true meaning of life is to plant a tree under whose shade
you will never sit.
Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>