From: Lars Schneider <email@example.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Eric Wong <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:45:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <249EE7A4-F297-4537-92A9-0EF75A3B1AEE@gmail.com> (raw)
> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:03, Junio C Hamano <email@example.com> wrote:
> Lars Schneider <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> The filter itself would need to be aware of parallelism
>>> if it lives for multiple objects, right?
>> Correct. This way Git doesn't need to deal with threading...
> I think you need to be careful about three things (at least; there
> may be more):
> * Done naively, it will lead to unmaintainable code, like this:
I started to work on the "delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter
requests" implementation and I am looking for a recommendation regarding
Deep down in convert.c:636 `apply_multi_file_filter()`  the filter learns
from the external process that the filter response is not yet available.
I need to transport this information quite a few levels up the call
# Option 1
I could do this by explicitly passing a pointer such as "int *is_delayed"
to the function. This would mean I need to update the function definitions
for all functions on my way through the stack:
# Option 2
All these functions pass-through an "int" return value that communicates
if the filter succeeded or failed. I could define a special return value
to communicate the third state: delayed.
What way do you think is better from a maintenance point of view?
I prefer option 2 but I fear that these "special" values could confuse
future readers of the code.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-24 16:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-14 21:09 RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests Lars Schneider
2016-11-15 1:03 ` Eric Wong
2016-11-15 14:29 ` Lars Schneider
2016-11-15 18:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-11-16 9:53 ` Lars Schneider
2016-11-16 18:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-11-16 18:47 ` Lars Schneider
2016-11-16 19:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-11-16 22:41 ` Jakub Narębski
2016-11-16 23:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-11-17 9:19 ` Lars Schneider
2016-11-24 15:45 ` Lars Schneider [this message]
2016-11-28 21:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-11-15 18:27 ` Eric Wong
2017-01-09 20:44 ` Stefan Beller
2017-01-11 12:57 ` Lars Schneider
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).