threads / discuss / 11762
Subject: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?
Mike HommeyHi,
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 ?
Cheers,
Mike
Johannes SchindelinRe: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?
Hi,
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> 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 ?
Really, I was waiting for somebody needing ftp and/or sftp support badly enough, so let's keep it.
I mean, one of those guys asking for ftp push support _got_ to just start scratching that itch, right?
Ciao, Dscho
Mike HommeyRe: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:46:59PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi, > > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > 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 ? > > Really, I was waiting for somebody needing ftp and/or sftp support badly > enough, so let's keep it. > > I mean, one of those guys asking for ftp push support _got_ to just start > scratching that itch, right?
Though, technically, ftp push could work with the curl code.
Mike
Jakub NarebskiRe: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?
Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:46:59PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote: >> >>> 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 ? >> >> Really, I was waiting for somebody needing ftp and/or sftp support badly >> enough, so let's keep it. >> >> I mean, one of those guys asking for ftp push support _got_ to just start >> scratching that itch, right? > > Though, technically, ftp push could work with the curl code.
IIRC git fetch works with FTP transport. Somebody would have to write replacement for WebDAV authentication for ftp / sftp / ftps to have proper ftp push support. There were request, but AFAIR no code.
Are you thinking about POP / IMAP transport, or XMPP one ;-PPP ?
-- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git
Daniel BarkalowRe: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?
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.
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*
Mike HommeyRe: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?
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.
Mike
Mike Hommeyhttp-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 ?
Mike
Daniel BarkalowRe: http-push as a builtin ? (Was: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?)
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> 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 ?
Not from me. Actually, it would be ideal to call its functions directly from transport.c and deprecate the separate command. (And possibly separate the control structure from the HTTP code and move the former into walker.c where it could be used by sftp)
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*