On Thursday 26 July 2012 10:29:51 Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Of course, if the dispatch loop has to be rewritten so that a
> central dispatcher decides what to call, individual input handlers
> do not need to say NOT_HANDLED nor TERMINATE, as the central
> dispatcher should keep track of the overall state of the system, and
> the usual "0 on success, negative on error" may be sufficient.
> One thing I wondered was how an input "capability" (or "list")
> should be handled after "import" was issued (hence batch_active
> becomes true).  The dispatcher loop in the patch based on
> NOT_HANDLED convention will happily call cmd_capabilities(), which
> does not have any notion of the batch_active state (because it is a
> function scope static inside cmd_import()), and will say "Ah, that
> is mine, and let me do my thing."  If we want to diagnose such an
> input stream as an error, the dispatch loop needs to become aware of
> the overall state of the system _anyway_, so that may be an argument
> against the NOT_HANDLED based dispatch system the patch series uses.

That's a good point. The current implementation allows other commands to 
appear during import batches. This shouldn't be possible according to the 
protocol, I think. But it doesn't do harm. Solving it will require a global 
state and go towards a global displatcher.

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

Reply via email to