On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:44:44 +0100, Boris FELD wrote:
> > I'm not sure what to do here. Yuya objected to the fileset one in
> > these. I don't have a problem omitting this, the template and revset
> > support, but I'm not sure what sort of problems that will cause in
> > evolve. I still think the command wrapping is worth keeping, due to
> > the helper code to wrap other extension's commands. Wrapping
> > extension commands properly seems pretty rare (so few examples) and a
> > bit obscure, so it seems better to not force the extension developer
> > to recognize the problem and roll their own solution.
> >
> > I'd like to get agreement before sending off the next iteration.
>
> Would it be possible to have the registrar command able to take an
> exthelper object as parameter (as an alternative to their xxxtable).
>
> This way we don't need to duplicate the registrar's function API but we
> keep the advantage of the exthelper.
Can you elaborate?
IIUC, the control flows of the registrar and the exthelper are different.
With registrar, the extension loader loads functions from a static table,
but with exthelper, functions are installed by a setup function. That makes
me feel they are inherently incompatible.
An alternative idea is to provide a thin registrar wrapper backed by an
exthelper table.
class exthelper:
def __init__:
self.xxx = registrar.xxx(self._xxxtable)
# in top-level extension module
xxx = eh.xxx
@eh.xxx(...)
def ...
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
