Re: http-push as a builtin ? (Was: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?)

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:17:49AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 04:23:17PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > While working on the http code refactoring, I got to wonder if the
> > > > walker.c "wrapper", that is only used for the http transport, is still
> > > > worth keeping. If there are plans for others transport to use this code,
> > > > obviously, it would be worth keeping, but on the contrary, I think it
> > > > would simplify the http transport code even more. What do you think ?
> > > 
> > > It would be a good base for sftp (i.e. dumb file access over ssh). In 
> > > fact, I think stuff should ideally be moved into walker.c such that the 
> > > HTTP-specific code just handles access to files by filename and the logic 
> > > of what files to request in what order is in walker.c. I think this would 
> > > get the simplification you're looking for while making it easy to add sftp 
> > > or any other situation where you have only slow remote filesystem-like 
> > > access to the repository.
> > 
> > I like this idea. I'll probably implement that, then.
> 
> BTW, would there be objections to have http-push as a builtin ?