| 1 |
On Wednesday, February 05, 2014 20:57:24 Arfrever wrote: |
| 2 |
> Calling portageq multiple times would be too slow for some tools. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
i think this is the fundamental point you're trying to side step/ignore. |
| 5 |
we've done work in the past to mitigate this. e.g. `portageq envvar -v` |
| 6 |
allows you to list multiple env vars at once and eval the result so you only |
| 7 |
have to query it once. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
if you think the existing portageq API is insufficient, then propose |
| 10 |
extensions/new helpers. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
if portageq is still too slow, then we should be figuring out how to speed |
| 13 |
that up. that would help out everyone. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
i don't think exporting bash funcs is the answer to any of the issues you're |
| 16 |
looking at here. we should not be writing two sets of APIs, especially when |
| 17 |
one is a speed hack to get around limitations in the other implementation. |
| 18 |
-mike |
Archives