Re: Libification project (SoC)

> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> 
> > Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> >> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> >> > On the other hand, many of the variables declared in environment.c
> >> > are repository specific configuration variables.  These probably
> >> > should be abstracted into some sort of wrapper, so that multiple
> >> > repositories can be accessed from within the same process.  Why?
> >> > a future mod_perl running gitweb.cgi accessing repositories through
> >> > libgit.a and Perl bindings of course!
> >> 
> >> I think if you are abstracting them out, into "struct repo_state",
> >> the index and object store related variables such as packed_git
> >> should go there as well, so your recommendation feels very
> >> inconsistent to me.
> >
> > I missed packed_git, but you are right, that should definately go
> > with a struct repo_state.  And maybe you are right that the index
> > should go with it... but I'm not sure the index should be tied to the
> > repository at all.  Its strictly convention that the index goes with
> > the repository; GIT_INDEX_FILE lets you say otherwise at the command
> > line level, why can't we do otherwise from a library level too?
> 
> Even within a plumbing, being able to shuffle multiple indices
> at once would be very useful.  For example, if I were to rewrite
> unpack-trees, I would most likely read from the current index
> and trees and populate a new index from emptiness by appending
> to it, thereby avoiding the binary-search and insert costs.
> 
> I've thought about the layering when Smurf first brought up the
> libification (which was a loooong time ago), and concluded three
> layered approach would be most useful.
> 
> The bottom layer is object store across repositories.  If we
> ignore SHA-1 collisions as an issue (and we _will_ ignore it for
> forseeable future), unless you are doing "read from one
> repository and write that to another repository", it is more
> handy to be able to name an object and get its data without
> knowing which repository's object store it comes from, and it
> would make "git log master~A..master~B" across repositories
> (i.e. 'master' of repository A and 'master' of repository B)
> possible.  An example interface would be like:
> 
> (current)
> void *read_sha1_file(const unsigned char *sha1,
> 		     enum object_type *type,
> 		     unsigned long *size);
> 
> (libified)
> void *git_read_sha1_file(struct gitlib *,
> 			 const unsigned char *sha1,
> 			 enum object_type *type,
> 			 unsigned long *size);
> 
> where "struct gitlib" has a list of "struct object_store", and
> we will have:
> 
> int git_add_object_store(struct gitlib *, const char *path);
> 
> to add one directory as object store the toplevel gitlib structure
> knows about.  In a sense, "struct gitlib" and object store is so
> global that we might not even need to have it as a parameter
> (iow, it and "struct object **obj_hash" from object.c can stay
> global).
> 
> The middle layer is repositories, primarily their refs and
> reflogs.  An example interface would be like:
> 
> (current)
> int get_sha1(const char *name, unsigned char *sha1);
> 
> (libified)
> int git_get_sha1(struct git_repo *, const char *name, unsigned char *sha1);
> 
> where "struct git_repo" is one repository (and it would have a
> pointer to "struct gitlib *" so that we can follow objects to
> follow parents and stuff).
> 
> And the top layer would have indices, and working trees as
> per-invocation parameter.
> 
> (current)
> int cache_name_pos(const char *name, int namelen);
> int unpack_trees(struct object_list *trees, struct unpack_trees_options *o);
> 
> (libified)
> int git_cache_name_pos(struct git_cache *, const char *name, int namelen);
> int git_unpack_trees(struct object_list *trees, struct git_unpack_trees_options *o);
> 
> where "struct git_cache" has "index" thingies, such as
> active_cache, active_nr, active_alloc, and active_cache_tree.
> And we would have pointer to "struct git_cache *" in unpack_trees_options
> structure.