Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] odb: prepare `struct odb_transaction` to become generic

> On 26/02/04 02:31AM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > +
>> > +/*
>> > + * A transaction may be started for an object database prior to writing new
>> > + * objects via odb_transaction_begin(). These objects are not committed until
>> > + * odb_transaction_commit() is invoked. Only a single transaction may be pending
>> > + * at a time.
>> > + *
>> > + * Each ODB source is expected to implement its own transaction handling.
>> > + */
>> >  struct odb_transaction;
>>
>> Nit: Wouldn't it be nicer to just the below `struct odb_transaction`
>> here and drop this line?
>
> I assume you mean drop the typedef in favor of defining it directly in
> the struct and thus removing the need for the forward declation. I kind
> of like having a typedef for the function callback, but I don't feel too
> strongly either way. I've ammended locally, but will hold off from
> sending another version unless there is other feedback.
>

>> > +typedef void (*odb_transaction_commit_fn)(struct odb_transaction *transaction);
>> > +struct odb_transaction {
>> > +	/* The ODB source the transaction is opened against. */
>> > +	struct odb_source *source;
>> > +
>> > +	/* The ODB source specific callback invoked to commit a transaction. */
>> > +	odb_transaction_commit_fn commit;
>> > +};
>> >
>> >  /*
>> >   * The object database encapsulates access to objects in a repository. It
>> > --
>> > 2.52.0.373.g68cb7f9e92
>>
>> Just a question in general, is the idea to eventually also add support
>> for {prepare, rollback} within odb transactions?
>
> I'm not quite sure yet about "prepare", but certainly an "abort" or
> "rollback" will be introduced in a followup series. This will be useful
> as we expand ODB transaction usage to other operations that require the
> ability to remove temporary objects such as remerge-diffs.
>