From: Justin Tobler Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 17:38:55 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] odb: prepare `struct odb_transaction` to become generic Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 26/02/04 02:31AM, Karthik Nayak wrote: > Justin Tobler 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. Thanks, -Justin