From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Cc: "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>,
"Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino" <lcapitulino@mandriva.com.br>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Libification project (SoC)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:54:52 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0703161251200.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vps79wueu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
>
> > Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> >> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> >> > On the other hand, many of the variables declared in environment.c
> >> > are repository specific configuration variables. These probably
> >> > should be abstracted into some sort of wrapper, so that multiple
> >> > repositories can be accessed from within the same process. Why?
> >> > a future mod_perl running gitweb.cgi accessing repositories through
> >> > libgit.a and Perl bindings of course!
> >>
> >> I think if you are abstracting them out, into "struct repo_state",
> >> the index and object store related variables such as packed_git
> >> should go there as well, so your recommendation feels very
> >> inconsistent to me.
> >
> > I missed packed_git, but you are right, that should definately go
> > with a struct repo_state. And maybe you are right that the index
> > should go with it... but I'm not sure the index should be tied to the
> > repository at all. Its strictly convention that the index goes with
> > the repository; GIT_INDEX_FILE lets you say otherwise at the command
> > line level, why can't we do otherwise from a library level too?
>
> Even within a plumbing, being able to shuffle multiple indices
> at once would be very useful. For example, if I were to rewrite
> unpack-trees, I would most likely read from the current index
> and trees and populate a new index from emptiness by appending
> to it, thereby avoiding the binary-search and insert costs.
>
> I've thought about the layering when Smurf first brought up the
> libification (which was a loooong time ago), and concluded three
> layered approach would be most useful.
>
> The bottom layer is object store across repositories. If we
> ignore SHA-1 collisions as an issue (and we _will_ ignore it for
> forseeable future), unless you are doing "read from one
> repository and write that to another repository", it is more
> handy to be able to name an object and get its data without
> knowing which repository's object store it comes from, and it
> would make "git log master~A..master~B" across repositories
> (i.e. 'master' of repository A and 'master' of repository B)
> possible. An example interface would be like:
>
> (current)
> void *read_sha1_file(const unsigned char *sha1,
> enum object_type *type,
> unsigned long *size);
>
> (libified)
> void *git_read_sha1_file(struct gitlib *,
> const unsigned char *sha1,
> enum object_type *type,
> unsigned long *size);
>
> where "struct gitlib" has a list of "struct object_store", and
> we will have:
>
> int git_add_object_store(struct gitlib *, const char *path);
>
> to add one directory as object store the toplevel gitlib structure
> knows about. In a sense, "struct gitlib" and object store is so
> global that we might not even need to have it as a parameter
> (iow, it and "struct object **obj_hash" from object.c can stay
> global).
>
> The middle layer is repositories, primarily their refs and
> reflogs. An example interface would be like:
>
> (current)
> int get_sha1(const char *name, unsigned char *sha1);
>
> (libified)
> int git_get_sha1(struct git_repo *, const char *name, unsigned char *sha1);
>
> where "struct git_repo" is one repository (and it would have a
> pointer to "struct gitlib *" so that we can follow objects to
> follow parents and stuff).
>
> And the top layer would have indices, and working trees as
> per-invocation parameter.
>
> (current)
> int cache_name_pos(const char *name, int namelen);
> int unpack_trees(struct object_list *trees, struct unpack_trees_options *o);
>
> (libified)
> int git_cache_name_pos(struct git_cache *, const char *name, int namelen);
> int git_unpack_trees(struct object_list *trees, struct git_unpack_trees_options *o);
>
> where "struct git_cache" has "index" thingies, such as
> active_cache, active_nr, active_alloc, and active_cache_tree.
> And we would have pointer to "struct git_cache *" in unpack_trees_options
> structure.
Isn't this an awfully long shot?
I'd be happy if the libification project resulted
- in a (static!) libgit.a which can be linked to qgit or similar (being
reentrant, or at least optionally so, and not die()ing all the time),
and
- which does not fix the API yet (at least for the most parts).
We _can_ -- once we agree on a stable API -- expose _some_ functions in a
libgit.so, but that does not have to be the goal for the first step!
Ciao,
Dscho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-16 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-16 4:24 Libification project (SoC) Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2007-03-16 4:59 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-03-16 5:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-03-16 6:00 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-03-16 6:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-03-16 11:54 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2007-03-16 13:09 ` Rocco Rutte
2007-03-16 15:12 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-16 15:55 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-03-16 16:13 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-16 16:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-03-16 18:22 ` Steve Frécinaux
2007-03-16 18:53 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-03-18 13:57 ` Petr Baudis
2007-03-16 23:26 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-16 16:17 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-03-16 18:20 ` Marco Costalba
2007-03-16 18:38 ` Marco Costalba
2007-03-16 18:59 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-03-16 21:07 ` Marco Costalba
2007-03-16 23:24 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-17 7:04 ` Marco Costalba
2007-03-17 17:29 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-16 19:09 ` Andy Parkins
2007-03-18 14:08 ` Petr Baudis
2007-03-18 23:48 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-19 1:21 ` Petr Baudis
2007-03-19 1:43 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-19 2:56 ` Theodore Tso
2007-03-19 3:55 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-03-19 14:57 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-19 16:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-03-19 16:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-03-21 11:17 ` Andreas Ericsson
2007-03-21 17:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-03-22 9:51 ` Andreas Ericsson
2007-03-19 7:01 ` Marco Costalba
2007-03-19 9:46 ` Steve Frécinaux
2007-03-19 10:33 ` Steve Frécinaux
2007-03-19 12:37 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-19 12:52 ` Petr Baudis
2007-03-19 13:55 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-19 13:04 ` Marco Costalba
2007-03-16 12:53 ` Petr Baudis
2007-03-16 13:47 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2007-03-16 14:08 ` Petr Baudis
2007-03-16 18:38 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2007-03-16 23:16 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-03-17 19:58 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2007-03-18 5:23 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-03-18 5:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-03-18 16:18 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2007-03-18 19:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-03-19 16:09 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2007-03-18 21:15 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-03-16 15:16 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-16 8:06 ` Johannes Sixt
2007-03-16 8:58 ` Matthieu Moy
2007-03-16 11:51 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-16 12:55 ` Petr Baudis
2007-03-17 2:24 ` Jakub Narebski
2007-03-17 5:22 ` Shawn O. Pearce
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
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 \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.63.0703161251200.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=junkio@cox.net \
--cc=lcapitulino@mandriva.com.br \
--cc=spearce@spearce.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
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).