Johannes Schindelin schrieb: > Hi, > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Johannes Sixt wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin schrieb: >>> FWIW GitTorrent may be implemented as part of git-daemon, if Sam's >>> ideas become reality. And then, sideband transport is _the_ means to >>> do asyncrounous communication while pushing bytes. >> I do not see how recv_sideband() in its current form could be helpful >> here (assuming that you really are thinking of sending binary data over >> band #2). > > I think it is a safe bet that the side band would be a good way to > exchange updates to the mirror list as well as the refs list. Binary or not - the purpose and suitability of the sideband *protocol* for this task are undisputed. But you don't want to have "remote:" thrown in at seemingly random places in the demultiplexed stream that comes fromt he current implementation of recv_sideband(). >>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Johannes Sixt wrote: >>>> And it really is: Did you notice that stuff that recv_sideband sends >>>> over the channel named 'err' (before my patch) has "remote: " >>>> prepended on every line? That's certainly not an implementation that >>>> you want if you send binary data over that band! >>> Yes, that is unfortunate, but can be fixed easily. >> I don't believe this. Every treatment of "remote: " that you take away >> from recv_sideband() you must insert somewhere else. Perhaps easy, but >> certainly not as trivial as my patch. > > AFAICT it would be a matter of > > unsigned pf = isatty(err) ? strlen(PREFIX) : 0; But don't you see that are mixing a high-level concept of "terminal" into the low-level function that you want it to be? In its current form, recv_sideband() is *not* a low-level utility, it's already at a high level that knows about the line-oriented nature of band #2. What you need for GitTorrent is a different function that *only* demultiplexes the sideband protocol data into different streams without munging them. That's a totally different function that *maybe* can share some code with the current recv_sideband(). >> Just a reminder: You proposed to override write() on Windows in a >> non-trivial way, and we are discussing the topic above because I think >> that is not a good idea. The reasons are: >> >> - write() is a fundamental operation, and we should not mess with it out >> of caution. > > But we do not mess with it! We ask explicitely if we are talking about a > tty. With reference to Peter's reply, I'm not the only one who gets nervous if write() is replaced in a non-trivial way. After all, you are sneaking the high-level concept "terminal emulation" into the low-level write() function. >> - Your proposal is not a catch-all. For example, combine-diff.c uses >> puts() in dump_quoted_path(). If your goal was to not touch code >> outside of compat/ then you need to override at least puts(), too. > >>From compat/mingw.h: > > -- snip -- > /* > * ANSI emulation wrappers > */ > > int winansi_fputs(const char *str, FILE *stream); > [...] > #define fputs winansi_fputs > -- snap -- > > ... added in c09df8a, SOBbed by yourself ;-) My point was that you cannot get away without modifying code outside of compat/ (if that was your motivation to override write()). I don't care whether we change this instance to fputs() or fprintf(). But we already *have* something, and don't need *yet another* override. >> - All code that writes ANSI escapes should use fprintf() anyway. >> (Currently that is not the case, but all cases I'm aware of can be >> fixed trivially.) > > I disagree that all ANSI escapes have to go through fprintf(). Sometimes > you have a buffer, and I do not like doing extra work with %.*s there. But on the other hand you risk breaking write() semantics and give us a colorful mix of concepts. I don't insist in that ANSI escapes must go through fprintf(), but they should really not go through a level that is lower than stdio. Basic file IO should really not be muddied with terminal emulation. > BTW I hope that you are not annoyed by the discussion; I think it is > necessary and important. I am certainly not married to my current POV; so > far, I am still in favor of it, though. I'm absolutely not annoyed. And I am as married to my POV as you are to yours. ;) In this case we perhaps need a tie-breaker. -- Hannes -- 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
