[PATCH][MERGE] Improvements to is_ignored, take 2

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 14:17 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> > Is this cache flushed if the ignore file changes?  It seems like either
> > that should happen, or perhaps the cache should be tied to the
> > Transaction.
...
> As far as being bound to a transaction...
> How far do we want transaction to extend into everything? Right now, it
> is a little bit ugly to pass it around everywhere (partially because
> 'transaction' is such a long word).
> 'session' might be a lot more palatable, and closer to what we actually
> mean by the class. (We can't rollback a Transaction, so it isn't really
> a transaction as such).

The Transaction class is meant to represent a logic transaction - a
group of actions being taken on a single set of domain objects. So
session is a reasonable replacement name for it, and I am aware of the
confusion that is being generated at the moment by the 'mental upgrade'
of the Transaction semantic from whats offered to what ACID transactions
offer. So lets rename it ;).

> Also, right now, we only really use the PassThroughTransaction, which
> doesn't do anything, and bzr only runs long enough to do everything 1
> time anyway. A future GUI/server would probably care more that things
> are cleaned up after every operation, since bzrlib would stay resident
> in ram for longer. So I'm not saying we don't want to use it, I'm just
> trying to figure out if it is worth doing that right now.

If we cache- I would pin it to the most relevant domain object, and
stash that in the session. I.e. perhaps stash it in the tree. But I
would not both cache AND make it global.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060116/3f689d5f/attachment.pgp