[Monotone-devel] Re: RFC: workspace migration and work.cc refactor [net.venge.monotone.workspace-merge.migration]

[Graydon Hoare]

Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Also on this branch is a massive refactor of work.cc.  I didn't *need*
> to do that for this change, but it wanted doing, and now I have a much
> better handle on what work.cc does.

Ok.

> However, what it does have is references to the database and
> lua_hooks objects.

Ownership as sub-objects, or pointers, or C++ & references?

> not to take an app_state reference as an argument.  I notice that
> database and lua_hooks themselves hold references -- to the entire
> app_state object.  If I did that in work, then all of the app_state
> arguments could go away; on the other hand, there's a degree of extra
> documentation in just which methods do take those pointers.  Which is
> preferred?

I'm a bit ambivalent about it. What I'd like are possibly contradictory 
goals:

  - minimize the use of raw pointers

  - keep everything in a tree under a single root object

  - move sensible subsets of app_state into sub-objects (options,
    workspace state, etc.) to improve program clarity

  - don't introduce so much "information hiding" that parts of the
    program do unusual amounts of work to get the information they
    need anyways

If you're doing all that, or approximating it tastefully, I'm all in 
favor of refactoring. I haven't read your branch yet though.

-graydon