On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:12:54PM -0700, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 08/24/10 03:46 PM, Edward Pilatowicz wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 03:32:40PM -0700, Shawn Walker wrote: > >>On 08/24/10 03:27 PM, Edward Pilatowicz wrote: > >>>On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:21:22PM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > >>>>Folks, > >>>>Over time the pkg(5) source code has sprouted a number of different, > >>>>independent file locking routines. This leads to a maintenance hassle > >>>>for the code, as any change to the locking code generates updates in > >>>>various places, if any bugs are found. This change makes the code > >>>>common, but customizable, so differnet modules can implement different > >>>>behaviors. I fixed a couple of additional locking bugs that were > >>>>discovered along the way. > >>>> > >>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~johansen/webrev-14615/ > >>>> > >>>>Thanks, > >>>> > >>> > >>>for lock file contents we have: > >>>- image.py: pid, pidname, and hostname. > >>>- indexer.py: pid, hostname > >>>- repository.py: pid, hostname > >>> > >>>why not have all the callers above save pid, pidname, and hostname and > >>>then put just one copy of the get/set lock string callback functions in > >>>lockfile.py. > >> > >>Image wants to save client name in addition to all of the above. > >> > > > >sure. but it seems like the others could save that as well and reduce > >duplication. > > The client name doesn't apply to the other classes.
What about a compromise? I can create client_[get|set]_lock_str and generic_[get|set]_lock_str. Indexer and Repository can use generic, image can use client, and cfgfiles will use None. -j _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
