From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/WIP PATCH 00/11] Protocol version 2, again!
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:10:41 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACsJy8CGW-Kaq6hkox03w5bQS2=tVNMzShKUBgC6wKX9dkMQGw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZxFnkneixquUijd2yfKBh6+XnYiYzCh8L9Mkourh64Fw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> However the client side with builtin/fetch, builtin/fetch-pack, fetch-pack
> is a bit of a mystery to me, as I cannot fully grasp the difference between
> * connect.{h,c}
> * remote.{h.c}
> * transport.{h.c}
> there. All of it seems to be doing network related stuff, but I have trouble
> getting the big picture. I am assuming all of these 3 are rather a low level,
> used like a library, though there must be even more hierarchy in there,
> connect is most low level judging from the header file and used by
> the other two.
> transport.h seems to provide the most toplevel library stuff as it includes
> remote.h in its header?
I think transport.c is there to support non-native protocols (and
later on, smart http). So yeah it's basically the API for fetches and
pushes. git-log over those files may reveal their purposes, especially
the few first versions of them.
> The problem I am currently trying to tackle, is passing the options through all
> the layers early on. so in a few places we have code like
>
> switch (version) {
> case 2: /* first talk about capabilities, then get the heads */
> get_remote_capabilities(data->fd[0], NULL, 0);
> select_capabilities();
> request_capabilities(data->fd[1]);
> /* fall through */
> case 1:
> get_remote_heads(data->fd[0], NULL, 0, &refs,
> for_push ? REF_NORMAL : 0,
> &data->extra_have,
> &data->shallow);
> break;
> default:
> die("BUG: Transport version %d not supported", version);
> break;
> }
>
> and the issue I am concerned about is the select_capabilities as well as
> the request_capabilities function here. The select_capabilities functionality
> is currently residing in the high level parts of the code as it both depends on
> the advertised server capabilities and on the user input (--use-frotz or config
> options), so the capability selection is done in fetchpack.c
>
> So there are 2 routes to go: Either we leave the select_capabilities in the
> upper layers (near the actual high level command, fetch, fetchpack) or we put
> it into the transport layer and just passing in a struct what the user desires.
> And when the users desire doesn't meet the server capabilities we die deep down
> in the transport layer.
I read the latest re-roll and I think the placement makes sense. You
can't put protocol specific at transport level because "pack protocol"
is just one of the supported protocols. There is smart-http (which
shares a bunch of code, but from transport perspective is a separate
protocol), and then user-defined protocols that know nothing about
this v2.
--
Duy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-02 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-26 22:01 [RFC/WIP PATCH 00/11] Protocol version 2, again! Stefan Beller
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 01/11] upload-pack: make client capability parsing code a separate function Stefan Beller
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 02/11] upload-pack: only accept capabilities on the first "want" line Stefan Beller
2015-05-26 22:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-26 22:20 ` Stefan Beller
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 03/11] upload-pack: move capabilities out of send_ref Stefan Beller
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 04/11] upload-pack-2: Implement the version 2 of upload-pack Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 2:30 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-05-27 6:35 ` Jeff King
2015-05-27 17:30 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-05-27 20:14 ` Jeff King
2015-05-27 17:40 ` Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 20:34 ` Jeff King
2015-05-27 20:45 ` Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 21:46 ` Jeff King
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 05/11] transport: add infrastructure to support a protocol version number Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 6:39 ` Jeff King
2015-05-27 19:01 ` Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 20:17 ` Jeff King
2015-05-27 19:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 06/11] remote.h: add get_remote_capabilities, request_capabilities Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 3:25 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-05-27 6:50 ` Jeff King
2015-05-27 17:19 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-05-27 20:09 ` Jeff King
2015-05-27 6:45 ` Jeff King
2015-05-29 19:39 ` Stefan Beller
2015-05-29 22:08 ` Jeff King
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 07/11] fetch-pack: use the configured transport protocol Stefan Beller
2015-05-26 22:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-26 22:23 ` Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 6:53 ` Jeff King
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 08/11] transport: connect_setup appends protocol version number Stefan Beller
2015-05-26 22:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-26 22:31 ` Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 5:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-27 6:56 ` Jeff King
2015-05-27 3:33 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-05-27 7:02 ` Jeff King
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 09/11] transport: get_refs_via_connect exchanges capabilities before refs Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 5:37 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-05-27 7:06 ` Jeff King
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 10/11] t5544: add a test case for the new protocol Stefan Beller
2015-05-27 5:34 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-05-27 7:12 ` Jeff King
2015-05-26 22:01 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 11/11] Document protocol version 2 Stefan Beller
2015-05-29 20:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-29 21:36 ` Stefan Beller
2015-05-29 21:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-29 22:21 ` Jeff King
2015-06-01 23:14 ` Stefan Beller
2015-06-01 23:40 ` Stefan Beller
2015-06-04 13:18 ` Jeff King
2015-06-04 17:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-06-02 17:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-27 6:18 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 00/11] Protocol version 2, again! Jeff King
2015-05-27 7:08 ` Jeff King
2015-06-01 17:49 ` Stefan Beller
2015-06-02 10:10 ` Duy Nguyen [this message]
2015-06-04 13:09 ` Jeff King
2015-06-04 16:44 ` Stefan Beller
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='CACsJy8CGW-Kaq6hkox03w5bQS2=tVNMzShKUBgC6wKX9dkMQGw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=sbeller@google.com \
/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).