Hi Philipp, Le 06/12/2013 17:58, Philipp Heckel a écrit : >> [..] >> So getChunkInputStream(ChunkEntryId) or getChunkInputStream(byte[] >> checksum)? >> > > This is definitely not the nicest design of Syncany -- what you can > also see by the TODO right next to the method. > > I think what's important is to keep dependencies between packages to > a minimal, or at least only in one direction. In this case, this is > particularly relevant, because: ChunkEntry != Chunk --- A ChunkEntry > is a database representation (id + size) or the actual chunk data, > while a Chunk is the actual chunk (id + size + data!) produced by the > Chunker.
The ChunkEntry is only the database representation, right? > This also explains the seemingly duplicates of classes in the > org.syncany.chunk and org.syncany.database packages. > > To answer your question: the latter, for now. :-) Hum, but if the ChunkEntry and the Chunk both contains the checksum which is the Id of the Chunk, why do we need a ChunkEntryId is the first place? Or to put it differently, why not replacing the byte[] in ChunkEntry and Chunk by a ChunkId? I'm asking because if you want to keep getChunkInputStream(byte[]) (which totally makes sense), then the ChunkEntryId must leek its internal representation (as a byte[]). So either it's a getCheckSum specific to ChunkEntryId, so far so good, or it's a general method of ObjectId. I would refrain from using the latter solution, because it will be inefficient for tight memory representation of short ids. Not a big deal, again. Also if you go for Gregor's solution (or a variant of it), it would mean putting getByteArray in the ObjectId which again is not so beautiful. Anyway, not a big deal... Cheers, Fabrice -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~syncany-team Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~syncany-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
