From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 11:32:18 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] object-file: introduce `struct odb_loose_source`
Message-ID: <aQNMwve9sUP-QDN6@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZQdit7N0aQWyqYHAoO6nuXaU3QqZbQmsbp52jW8C-zbzA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 03:47:58AM -0700, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > Currently, all state that relates to loose objects is held directly by
> > the `struct odb_source`. Introduce a new `struct odb_loose_source` to
> > hold the state instead so that it is entirely self-contained.
> >
> 
> I wonder if the naming should instead be `struct obd_source_loose` that
> way other backends (if added) would be something like:
> 
>     struct obd_source_loose
>     struct obd_source_postgres
>     struct obd_source_mongo
> 
> This is easier to read and also for autocompletion it leads nicely into
> the 'obd_source_...' namespace.

Hm, I see your point. I think that "loose source" flows a bit more
natural, but I agree that the above is more accessible in code.

Before I change this: does anybody else have an opinion here?

Thanks!

Patrick