On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:26:30PM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > 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. >
sounds great. ed _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
