> On 27 Jul 2016, at 21:08, Jakub Narębski <jna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> W dniu 2016-07-27 o 02:06, larsxschnei...@gmail.com pisze:
>> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks a lot for the extensive reviews. I tried to address all mentioned
>> concerns and summarized them below. The most prominent changes since v1 are
>> the following:
>> * Git offers a number of filter capabilities that a filter can request
>> (right now only "smudge" and "clean" - in the future maybe "cleanFromFile",
>> "smudgeToFile", and/or "stream")
>> * pipe communication uses a packet format (pkt-line) based protocol
>
> I wonder if it would make sense to support both whole-file pipe communication,
> and packet format (pkt-line) pipe communication.
>
> The problem with whole-file pipe communication (original proposal for
> new filter protocol is that it needs file size upfront. For some types
> of filters it is not a problem:
> - if a filtered file has the same size as original, like for rot13
> example in the test for the feature
> - if you can calculate the resulting file size from original size,
> like for most if not all encryption formats (that includes GPG,
> uudecode, base64, quoted-printable, hex, etc.); same for decryption,
> and from converting between fixed-width encodings
> - if resulting file size is saved somewhere that is easy to get, like
> for LFS solutions (I think).
>
> For other filters it is serious problem. For example indent, keyword
> expansion, rezipping with zero compression (well, maybe not this one,
> but at least the reverse of it), converting between encodings where
> at least one is variable width (like UTF-8),...
>
> IMHO writing whole-file persistent filters is easier than using pkt-line.
> On the other hand using pkt-line allow for more detailed progress report.
I initially wanted to support only "while-file" pipe, too.
But Peff ($gmane/299902), Duy, and Eric, seemed to prefer the pkt-line
solution (gmane is down - otherwise I would have given you the links).
After I have looked at it I think the pkt-line solution is indeed nicer
for the following reasons:
(1) A stream optimized version (read/write in separate threads) of the filter
protocol can be implemented in the future without changing the protocol
(2) pkt-line is a simple and easy to implement format
(3) Reuse of existing Git communication infrastructure
-> code and documentation are less surprising to people that know Git
-> you can use GIT_TRACE_PACKET to easily inspect the
communication between Git and the filter process
(4) The overheads is neglect able (4 byte header vs 65516 byte content)
>> * a long running filter application is defined with "filter.<driver>.process"
>
> I hope that won't confuse Git users into trying to use single-shot
> filters with a new protocol...
Yes, that was my intention for this new config.
Thanks,
Lars--
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
