On Sun, Apr 18, Petr Baudis wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 02:46:16AM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:

quoted text
> > Or is it
> > meant as web analogue of git-gui: a committool, with ability to create
> > new commits, perhaps to edit files (and add them, delete them, move them
> > around), a bit like ikiwiki with Git backend, or other Git based wikis
> > and blogs?
> 
> Yes. Though it is probably supposed to be real Git frontend with Git
> semantics, not something more abstract with Git under the hood.

Hmmm... doesn't look so easy.  What to do about simultaneous access
(what webmin does?), and working directory (what ikiwiki does?)?
 
quoted text
> > 1. Keep "Web Client" separate for gitweb, and make use of gitweb 
> >    hooks/plugin system like $feature{'actions'}.  This might require
> >    adding new "hooks" to gitweb.
> > 
> >    The advantage is that "Web Client" can be written in any language,
> >    not necessary Perl.  The disadvantage that if it is written in Perl,
> >    some code might be duplicated.  It might be hard to write generic
> >    hooks - the "Web Client" could be not as well integrated with gitweb.
> > 
> > 2. Write "Web Client" as a Perl module, like 'gitweb/cache.pm' in the
> >    http://repo.or.cz/w/git/jnareb-git.git/log/refs/heads/gitweb/cache-kernel-pu
> >    and 'require' this file as needed, guarded by global variable or
> >    %feature.
> > 
> >    The advantage is possible tighter integration.  I am not sure about
> >    being able to use code from gitweb in "Web Client".  It also requires
> >    using Perl, and might require using some contortions if the problem
> >    would be naturally split into multiple modules: there can be multiple
> >    modules, but it could be better to have them in one file.
> 
> I think (2) is only infinitesimally better than (1) if you can't call
> all the gitweb methods from your module anyway. For me, the main worry
> is maintaining some consistent UI for the user (graphical and URI-wise)
> and (2) can accomplish this really only in a limited way unless you go
> much further with the modularization first.

Well, you can always add some of "Web Client" functionality directly
to gitweb (for example dispatch must be, I think, in gitweb).  Or you
can (ab)use "do $gitwebgui_pm;" instead of "require $gitwebgui_pm;",
like in http://repo.or.cz/w/git/jnareb-git.git/commitdiff/261b99e3#patch3
(second chunk).

OTOH we can always make gitweb "use Git;" and move some of its routines,
to it after generalization (e.g. config management using single run of
"git config -l -z", unquoting paths, parsing commit/tag/ls-tree/difftree
etc., date parsing and conversion).


BTW. the major thing that prevented me from using Git.pm was the few
places that gitweb uses pipeline, or needs to redirect STDERR to 
/dev/null.  Also t9700-perl-git.sh test doesn't test command_output_pipe
and the like. 

quoted text
> > 3. Split Gitweb, add "Web Client" as one of modules.  Might be best
> >    from the purity point of view, but is practical only if it is
> >    integrated in gitweb.  That would require getting gitweb maintainer
> >    out of GSoC.   Also I am not sure how feaible this approach would be.
> 
> Would it be really required to get gitweb maintainer out of GSoC in
> order to go this way? Why?

Well, at least someone who would be able to manage integrating split
gitweb.  I think that splitting gitweb, and doing it well, is quite
outside this GSoC 2010 proposal: it would be too much. 

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html