Re: [PATCH 2/3] refs: introduce new API, wrap old API shallowly around new API

From: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>
Date: Jul 27, 2018, 17:19 UTC
Message-ID: <20180727171941.GA109508@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8Ae3sZvOQ3irQM+hv0fCRchGi8995kvLZBadbaphRo-3A@mail.gmail.com>

On 07/27, Duy Nguyen wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:40 AM Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Currently the refs API takes a 'ref_store' as an argument to specify
> > which ref store to iterate over; however it is more useful to specify
> > the repository instead (or later a specific worktree of a repository).
> 
> There is no 'later'. worktrees.c already passes a worktree specific
> ref store. If you make this move you have to also design a way to give
> a specific ref store now.
> 
> Frankly I still dislike the decision to pass repo everywhere,
> especially when refs code already has a nice ref-store abstraction.
> Some people frown upon back pointers. But I think adding a back
> pointer in ref-store, pointing back to the repository is the right
> move.

I don't quite understand why the refs code would need a whole repository and not just the ref-store it self. I thought the refs code was self contained enough that all its state was based on the passed in ref-store. If its not, then we've done a terrible job at avoiding layering violations (well actually we're really really bad at this in general, and I *think* we're trying to make this better though the object store/index refactoring).

If anything I would expect that the actual ref-store code would remain untouched by any refactoring and that instead the higher-level API that hasn't already been converted to explicitly use a ref-store (and instead just calls the underlying impl with get_main_ref_store()). Am I missing something here?

-- 
Brandon Williams