Hi, Here is the new version attached. The reason I didn't attach it in the last email was because I couldn't rearrange the " this particular jungle " in any reasonable way and was still wondering what to do with it :) But I will wait for you now to brush it first! I am leaving this peace untouched from previous version, but other places are adjusted as discussed.
Best Regards, Elena -----Original Message----- From: Panu Matilainen [mailto:pmati...@laiskiainen.org] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 3:42 PM To: Reshetova, Elena Cc: rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org Subject: Re: [Rpm-maint] FSM hooks for rpm plugin On 02/04/2013 02:18 PM, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > Hi, > > >> I've started to wonder about the hook names though: "open" and "close" >> seem out of place especially here (and to lesser degree elsewhere). >> Perhaps these hooks should simply follow the pre/post pattern even in >> the names, ie FILE_PRE and FILE_POST. I think it'd be more >> descriptive wrt what they actually do, and leave open and close free >> for possible later use for the cases where a kind of open+close >> (files from payload >> stream) is actually occurring. > > Sure, this is an easy change and I just did it. But the one below has > made me a headache :( > >> This gets quite ugly indeed, better refactor the surrounding code >> (which is ugly in itself) to allow for nice clean pairing. Oh and >> btw, this version of the patch introduces a new asymmetry case: if >> the open-hook fails, close-hook wont get called. It'll need something >> like open-hook just flagging postpone >>> without terminating the loop, and adjusting the rest of the code to >>> deal >> with it. I'll have a look at this, how hard can it be ;) > > I have written and rewritten now this part and still it looks ugly or > even worse :( Flagging postpone is actually easy as well as not > breaking out of loop in the beginning, but the early return is a small > nightmare. If you introduce a variable tracking this, smth like > "hardbreak" and setting it at that point, then you have a number of > stupid if() causes, which make the whole constructions completely > unreadable in addition to handling postpone and rc status (I have to > walk thought this with pen and big white sheet to track the cases). > Other option is "goto xyz" to bypass this.... but I am not sure this is any > better, but might be easier to read. What do you think is better? I meant that I'll have a look at streamlining this particular jungle first in a way that (hopefully) makes adding the hooks easy or at least easier. There are all sorts of suspicious spots in there... > I have also fixed the other two issues you pointed in the other email. Ok, good... but the patch seems to be missing from your mail :) - Panu -
0001-Adding-FSM-file-hooks.patch
Description: Binary data
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
