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* - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
