Gentoo Archives: gentoo-guis

From: "René 'Necoro' Neumann" <lists@××××××.eu>
To: gentoo-guis@l.g.o
Cc: Kuroo Kuroo <×××××.com>, nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com, Porthole-Developers <porthole-devel@×××××××××××××××××.net>, info@×××××.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-guis] One backend for all portage GUIs
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:15:39
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-guis] One backend for all portage GUIs by Brian
Hash: SHA1

Brian schrieb:
> On Mon, 2007-08-10 at 19:52 +0200, René 'Necoro' Neumann wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >>> At the beginning of next week, I'm planning to make portato use this new >>> amazing backend :). We'll see if this is going to work... (Rumors say >>> that currently dbus times out on the first connect...) >> As promised, I finished a portato version which is using the new >> catapult backend... (Btw - the rumor has been proved being wrong ;)) >> >> You can get the code doing: >> svn co >> or you can install portato with catapult support: >> 1. layman -o -f >> 2. layman -o -a portato >> 3. USE="catapult" emerge -av "=portato-9999" >> >> >> Now another question occurs: Am I the only one interested in this >> project? Because there is nearly no feedback/suggestions/discussions >> (except with bheekling in IRC) >> >> Regards, >> - - Necoro > > No, I am interested in working with you to develop an (hopefully) > universal back-end. Like others have said, I have been busy and not had > more time to work on it. I also need to finish some things and a few > bug fixes to get a release out. Any new back-end support will need to > wait for a future release.
Yeah - sorry me =| ... I've been a little too impatient :)
> > > I almost sent a reply early this weekend, but you did say you would not > be starting until this week and that you wanted to do some testing to > prove or debunk some rumours as to it's performance. > > I am glad that you have been able to debunk them :) > > Now for some more nitty gritty things. So far we have not > discussed/decided which of the models you laid out we would base this > new back-end on.
We decided (where "we" means: bheekling, araujo and me) to use (try?) the structure mentioned here [1] as "No Daemon".
> So far it is just portato's existing back-end wrapped > in dbus. I think it is great for initial testing without expending a > lot of effort in restructuring any front-end code. But I do not think > it would be usable for me at all. Porthole has grown so much over the > years that it's code was getting somewhat like portage's, huge files. > For this next version I have spilt things up quite a bit, modularizing > things better. Have cut down memory usage quite a bit and sped things > up quite a bit in the process. > > > So far your catapult back-end is creating a > package object for your front-end.
Wrong... basically the "Package" and "System" classes are just a bunch of functions. They do not behave in an object-oriented manner (ie. you have to provide a CPV (cat/pkg-ver) for each call to the Package object). So this really is functional. Perhaps they can be merged into one object - just wanted to structurize a little bit. I thought of doing it really object-oriented, i.e. creating a dbus-object for each package in the tree (so you would then have for example: "org/gentoo/catapult/packages/sys-apps/portage") but this kinda screwed up dbus ;). Portato (which supported switching backends for some time already) is wrapping these functional calls into its own objects... see the CatapultPackage object [2] as an example.
> That may be fine for a fully > integrated program, but now you are separating it out into it's own > process and passing that structure to your front-end. I don't know if > dbus is passing references (pointers) or making copies. I think that > there is potential for large memory leaks that way. Also portholes > definition of a package object is different than portato's as I'm sure > kuroo's and himerge's is.
Does not apply -- see above :)
> I believe that the back-end should be > restricted to only interfacing the front-end to the package manager > enquiries along with some utility code for odds and ends to provide a > more complete back-end service. By odds and ends I mean code chunks > needed to be able to provide missing features/functions of the different > package managers we may support.
Yes - this is what we want to achieve. What we need is a stable API - so that we can say: All backends have to provide the following functions: ...
> > I think that pothole's contents is more of what a back-end > should provide. I'll be the first to admit (I'm biased) it needs work > and cleanup and there is room for it to grow/improve. I do not think > that it should be providing package structures with embedded package > manager calls. I think it should be restricted to the basic data types > returned by the package managers. Any more complex structures should be > handled by the front-end code or any intermediate code it uses.
See 3 above ;)
> Anyway... my thoughts so far. How about the others? What do you see as > your needs of a back-end? > > > Another question, I have subscribed to the gentoo-guis list. Is > everyone else that is interested also? Should we just use that list for > now? So I/we don't get 4 or five copies of an email from different > directions.
I already removed you from the CC list. Should the Portato-Developers be removed too?
> > As for IRC, I'm not that big on it. Also I'm in the Canada/US Pacific > time zone, Necoro I believe is in Europe. That usually means when I'm > going to bed, he's just coming online and vice versa. >
*stabs the freaking timezones* Regards, - - Necoro [1] [2] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - iD8DBQFHC26Z4UOg/zhYFuARArXYAJ47EhHSWgynsdsDzYPc+XBGOvedPQCghYQj 10G/yRYmYS0Ukd1Q+wAYEDo= =0TFY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-guis@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-guis] One backend for all portage GUIs "René 'Necoro' Neumann" <lists@××××××.eu>